Governing for research integrity: some ... - UQ eSpace

Governing for research integrity: some theoretical and practical lessons from an

industry-funded unconventional gas research centre in Australia

Liz Hardie

B.A. Hons (1st), PG Dip Economics, MAAPD, MPhil (Social Science)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in 2019

Sustainable Minerals Institute

ii

Abstract

University-industry research partnerships are generally hidden behind confidentiality

agreements and of little concern to those beyond the partnership. Yet, there are mounting

concerns among academics, activists and diverse groups with a stake in the research

topics, that industry-funding leads research groups to produce biased or trivial research.

There is a perception that universities must take steps to safeguard the integrity of

industry-funded research and not leave the responsibility for research integrity with

individual researchers. Without suitable governance structures in university-industry

research partnerships, it is presumed that the research will inevitably favour the funder’s

goals to the detriment of university, public, national or environmental interests.

Knowledge gaps in this domain are approached through drawing a provisional conceptual

model of research integrity governance from the university-industry engagement (UIE)

literature. The Provisional Model is drawn from content analysis of 1758 peer-reviewed

journal articles, from 537 journals, dated from 1986 to 2016 using the qualitative data

analysis software, Leximancer. The UIE literature reveals that regardless of the nature of

research partnership, the requisite research integrity is assured by:1) ensuring the veracity

of scientific processes (‘microethics’); 2) managing the industry partnerships; and 3)

providing research outputs of value to the industry partner.

Empirical data for this research comes from a qualitative case study of an AUD$25.5

million, 5-year university-industry research centre (UIRC) conducting research into a coal

seam gas (CSG) development in southern Queensland, Australia. The extensive fieldwork

conducted from 2014-2016 provided opportunities for observations, semi-structured

interviews and document analysis. Stakeholders expected the UIRC not only to

demonstrate the ‘microethics’ of research behaviours and practices, but also to address

community issues and attend to the ethical implications of their work in a larger societal

context, which can be termed ‘macroethics’. The empirical data confirms the provisional

conceptual model for research integrity governance drawn from the UIE literature, but also

exposes other elements of the research integrity governance regime in the UIRC. The

fieldwork reveals that UIRC research is accepted by diverse stakeholders with interests in

CSG, not only because of its accuracy and commercial value, but also because of its

perceived benefit to society. The revised model for research integrity governance

iii

proposes that, in addition to adhering to national funding body / university conventions for

preventing research misconduct (identifying and resolve integrity breaches and the

provision of research training), there are three other ‘macroethic’ elements of research

integrity governance in UIRCs. They are: 1) establishing and promoting corporate

governance mechanisms that integrate the contractual, professional and social

responsibilities of the UIRC; 2) creating unified multi-party community-facing technological

solutions or objects; and 3) communicating scientific methods and research findings for

various publics whilst engaging with multiple research collaborators and end-users.

In response to the UIE management and governance challenges identified by the

members of the UIRC, the body that partially funded the researcher during the PhD, a

further step is taken in this thesis. That is, to develop an analytical framework for socially

responsible university-industry engagement to explicitly integrate research integrity

concerns into the governance arrangements of UIRCs. The Framework for University-

Industry Engagement with Social Responsibility (FUIESR) aims to guide and facilitate

understanding of the ‘macroethics’ elements of UIRC governance. This exploratory study

concludes that where UIRCs engage with multiple unaligned stakeholder groups,

additional governance mechanisms are needed to ensure research integrity. This finding is

consistent with notions of socially responsible universities and research that are emerging

from the Social Responsibility and the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) agenda

from the United States, along with the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)

paradigm from Europe. Through integrating ‘social responsibility’ approaches into UIRC

operations, it is envisaged that the integrity of industry-funded research can be

established, even in highly contested areas.

iv

Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published

or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I

have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly authored works that I have included

in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical

assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional

editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in

my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the

commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a

substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other

degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which

parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University

Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the

thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act

1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the

copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright

permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought

permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

v

Publications included in this thesis

No publications included

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication

Other publications during candidature

Peer-Reviewed Papers

Hardie, L. and N. Smith Devetak (2014). "Research and Innovation Partnerships: Lessons

and Resources for the Unconventional Gas Sector." Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal

(OGEL) 12(3).

Hardie, L., and N. Smith Devetak (2016). "Universities in contentious energy debates—

Science, democracy and coal seam gas in Australia." Energy Research & Social

Science 20: 105–116.

Conference

Hardie, L. (2016). Organisational Social Responsibilities of University-Industry Research

Centres - A Conceptual Framework, ANZAM Conference. Brisbane.

Contributions by others to the thesis

No contributions by others

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis

vi

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

The study was approved by the Sustainable Mineral Institute’s student ethics committee in

March 2015. For further details contact Professor Deanna Kemp of the Centre for Social

Responsibility in Mining.

vii

Acknowledgements

In a study of this nature there are many people and organisations that are relied on to

provide help and guidance on various issues. To all the people who were kind enough to

participate in or contribute to this thesis, I say thank you. This study would not have been

possible without you.

I thank my supervisory team – Professors Mark Dodgson, Will Rifkin, Deanna Kemp and

Doctors Jo-Anne Everingham and Suzanne Morris – for helping me articulate my ideas

and maintaining their faith in my ability to complete this study. Various reviewers –

Professor Tim Turpin and Doctors Carol Bond, Naomi Smith Devetak and Kathy Witt – and

others who remain anonymous, have been thoughtful and generous. To Diane Josey,

thank you for patiently editing this dissertation. Too many to name have contributed their

time and efforts to ensure this study was completed. I thank them all and hope that the

care and wisdom they shared with me is returned to them.

My initial instinct on engaging in this research was that university-industry engagement,

research integrity, social responsibility and coal seam gas were linked; however, they

tracked around in my head as discrete and messy notions for too long. Fortunately, as my

candidature progressed, the fog cleared to provide a perspective about research integrity.

In contrast to most PhD students in the social sciences who have a burning question that

they want to answer, I faced a problem posed by those funding my research, one for which

there was no single resolution, although many paths provided partial answers to it. I soon

found that some valuable paths can't be discovered without getting lost. The important

turning points in my PhD candidature were small, ill-defined and scruffy.

To my cheer squad of family and friends who share my toils and achievements – I am

grateful to have you around me. Thanks for being fabulous. My lads have witnessed my

efforts in completing this study and hopefully appreciate all that I have relinquished to

attain this qualification. I hope that they find mountains to climb and grand goals to pursue

with persistence and patience: for doing so, fires the imagination and nourishes the soul.

viii

Financial support

This research was supported by an Australian Government Postgraduate Award

scholarship and a stipend from the Centre for Coal Seam Gas at the University of

Queensland.

Keywords

University-industry Engagement (UIE), Research Integrity, Coal Seam Gas, Social

Responsibility

ix

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 160511 Research, Science and Technology Policy 40%

ANZSRC code: 150307 Innovation and Technology Management 40%

AMZSRC code: 150310 Organisation and Management Theory 20%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 1503 Business and Management 50%

FoR code: 1605 Policy and Administration 50%

x

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xiv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xv

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................... xvi

Part A: Background and Theoretical Constructs .......................................................................... 1

Chapter One – Why is ensuring the integrity of industry-funded research of concern to the

university sector?.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Preamble ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.0.1 Growth of UIE in Australia ............................................................................................. 1

1.0.2 Governing Contemporary UIE can be complex .............................................................. 3

1.0.3 Responding to the increased scrutiny of university activity by external parties ........... 7

1.0.4 UIE with the oil and gas industry is timely and understudied ....................................... 9

1.1 Challenge and Rationale ...................................................................................................... 10

1.2 UQ-CCSG seeking evidence for decision-making ................................................................ 11

Current knowledge about research integrity .............................................................. 12

1.3 The Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 15

1.4 UIRCs and Institutional Theory ............................................................................................ 18

1.5 The setting – An Australian university, the O&G industry and the unconventional gas

controversy ..................................................................................................................................... 20

UIE in the Extractives Industries .................................................................................. 21

Research Collaboration around Natural Gas ............................................................... 22

1.5.3 Australia’s Burgeoning Natural Gas Industry ............................................................... 23

1.6 Introducing the Case: Questioning the Integrity of UQ-CCSG Research ............................. 31

1.7 Significance of this Study ..................................................................................................... 34

1.8 Structure of the Thesis ........................................................................................................ 36

1.9 Contributions ....................................................................................................................... 39

2. Chapter Two – Research Integrity in the University-Industry Engagement Literature .......... 41

2.0 Preamble ............................................................................................................................. 41

2.1 Introducing UIE Scholarship ................................................................................................ 43

2.1.1 Approach to the Literature Review .............................................................................. 47

2.1.2 Collecting the corpus of UIE articles ............................................................................ 48

2.2 UIE Field Properties ............................................................................................................. 51

xi

2.2.2 Triple Helix perspectives of UIE ................................................................................... 54

2.2.3 Unit of Analysis – the Nano-level ................................................................................. 58

2.2.4 Major contributions to UIE Scholarship ....................................................................... 60

2.2.5 Shifting focus of UIE Scholarship ................................................................................. 62

2.2.6 Five Research Streams contributing to UIE Scholarship .................................................... 67

2.3 Depiction of the O&G Industry in the UIE Literature .......................................................... 73

2.4 Research Integrity in the UIE Literature .............................................................................. 76

2.4.1 Four Key Factors Shaping UIRC Research Integrity Governance ................................. 79

2.5 Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance......................................................... 84

2.5.1 Governing UIRCs to ensure Research Integrity ............................................................ 85

2.5.2 Governing for Research Integrity – Common approaches .......................................... 87

2.6 End of Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 89

Part B: Approach to Study ........................................................................................................ 91

3 Chapter Three – Research Design ....................................................................................... 91

3.0 Preamble ............................................................................................................................. 91

3.0.1 Methodological accountability is crucial to UIE research ............................................ 92

3.1 The Case Study Approach .................................................................................................... 94

3.1.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 98

3.1.2 Demonstrating the validity and quality of this study ................................................ 100

3.1.3 Selection of a Single Case Study................................................................................. 102

3.1.4 Starting Out – Drawing from the Natural Setting ...................................................... 102

3.1.5 Conducting reflective and reflexive research – Changing the initial research design

103

3.2 Data Collection and Management .................................................................................... 107

3.2.1 Data Management and Security ................................................................................ 110

3.2.2 Sequencing of Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 110

3.2.3 Use of Leximancer ...................................................................................................... 111

3.2.4 Reporting the Findings ............................................................................................... 113

3.3 Research Paradigm and Philosophical Foundations ......................................................... 114

3.3.1 Field of Organisational Management ........................................................................ 115

3.3.2 ‘For the field’, while surrounded by ‘in the field’ researchers .................................. 117

3.3.3 Post-Positivism in Action ............................................................................................ 118

xii

3.4 Ethics and Access ............................................................................................................... 121

3.4.1 Access and Layered Gatekeeper Permissions ............................................................ 121

3.4.2 Voluntary Participation .............................................................................................. 122

3.4.3 Do no harm ................................................................................................................ 124

3.4.4 Anonymity and Confidentiality .................................................................................. 126

3.5 End of Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 127

Part C: Findings ...................................................................................................................... 129

4 Chapter Four – The Case Study: Introducing the UQ-CCSG ................................................ 129

4.1 Brief History of the Queensland CSG Industry .................................................................. 129

4.2 Emergence of CSG research agendas ................................................................................ 134

4.2.1 Cooperation and Competition in Australian CSG research ............................................. 142

4.3 The Nature of the UQ-CCSG .............................................................................................. 145


5 Chapter Five – Nature of Research Integrity Governance in the UQ-CCSG ......................... 157

5.0 Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 157

5.1 Integrity of the Scientific Process – predicted by the Provisional Model ......................... 158

5.2 Integrity of the UIE Partnership – predicted by the Provisional Model ............................ 162

5.3 Integrity of New ‘Boundary’ Technologies and Objects – from the fieldwork ................. 168

5.4 Integrity of Relationships with external Stakeholders – from the fieldwork .................... 171

5.5 Integrity of the UIRC organisation – from the fieldwork .................................................. 176


6 Chapter Six – The UQ-CCSG and the Provisional Model for Research Integrity .................. 181

6.0 Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 181

6.1 The Operating Context ...................................................................................................... 181

6.2 Identify and punish scientific misconduct - predicted by the Provisional Model ............. 183

6.3 Promote research integrity values – predicted by the Provisional Model ....................... 185

6.4 Protecting the scientific and public record - partially predicted by the scholarship ........ 186

6.5 Build trust among partnership members .......................................................................... 188

6.6 Demonstrate responsiveness to public concerns ............................................................. 190

6.7 Transparency, openness, accepting responsibility ........................................................... 192


Part D: Discussions ................................................................................................................. 195

xiii

7 Chapter Seven – The Revised Model for Research Integrity Governance ........................... 195

7.0 Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 195

7.1 Advancing an Approach – Socially Responsible University-Industry Engagement ........... 200

7.2 Conducting Socially-Responsible Research ....................................................................... 204


Part D: Summation and Contribution ...................................................................................... 212

8 Chapter Eight – Conclusion .............................................................................................. 212

8.0 Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 212

8.1 Summarising the Key Findings .......................................................................................... 214

8.2 Contributions ..................................................................................................................... 216

8.2.1 Contributions to Theory ............................................................................................. 217

8.2.2 Contributions to Management .................................................................................. 220

8.2.3 Contributions to UIE Policy in Australia ..................................................................... 222

8.3 Limitations of the work ..................................................................................................... 223

8.4 Implications of the work for future research .................................................................... 224

8.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 226

9. List of References ............................................................................................................ 228

Appendix 1: Fields of Interest of Journals that have published UIE articles .............................. 274

Appendix 2: Stakeholders with interests in the CSG industry................................................... 275

Appendix 3: Leximancer Map – Key concepts and themes 1986-1990 ...................................... 277






Appendix 9: UIE Corpus - Leximancer Key Words in 5 Year Blocks ........................................... 283

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................. 39

Figure 2: University-Industry Engagement Scales of Analysis ........................................................... 59

Figure 3: Growth in UIE Literature ..................................................................................................... 61

Figure 4: Provisional Research Integrity Governance Analytical Model ............................................ 84

Figure 5: The Research Design ......................................................................................................... 100

Figure 6: Iterating the Case Study .................................................................................................... 120

Figure 7: Revised Research Integrity Governance Analytical Model ............................................... 196

xv

List of Tables

Table 1: Key Terms Used in Thesis ..................................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Unconventional Gas University-Industry Research Centres with funding from industry

sources ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 3: UIE Literature Reviews 1986-2018 ....................................................................................... 45

Table 4: Characteristics of the UIE Literature Review ....................................................................... 50

Table 5: List of Terms describing UIE ................................................................................................. 52

Table 6: Prominent UIE Journals ........................................................................................................ 62

Table 7: Five research streams contributing to UIE scholarship........................................................ 68

Table 8: List of Notions related to Research Integrity in UIE Literature ............................................ 77

Table 9: Indicators of Case Study Research Quality ......................................................................... 101

Table 10: Interview List .................................................................................................................... 108

Table 11: Five Types of Data ............................................................................................................ 109

Table 12: Queensland CSG-LNG Developments .............................................................................. 131

Table 13: Research Organisations established to examine the Queensland CSG Industry ............. 143

Table 14: Categorisation of UQ-CCSG Research Approaches .......................................................... 155

Table 15: Five Elements of Research Integrity Governance ............................................................ 179

Table 16: Material Social Responsibilities in Unconventional Gas as defined by the Industry and the

Non-Profit Global Reporting Initiative ............................................................................................. 202

Table 17: Framework for University-Industry Engagement with Social Responsibility (FUIESR) .... 210

xvi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym

AAS Australian Anthropological Society

AATSE Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

ACCSR Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility

ACOLA Australian Council of Learned Academies

APLNG Australia Pacific Liquefied National Gas – a joint venture between

Origin, Conoco Phillips and Sinopec

APPEA Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association

ARC Australian Research Council

ASSDA Australian Social Science Data Archive

CAQDAS Computer Assisted / aided Qualitative Discourse Analysis Software

CBD Central Business District

CBM Coalbed Methane

CCA Conduct and Compensation Agreements

CDT Centre for Doctoral Training (UK)

COI Conflict of Interest

COP21 2015 Paris United Nations Climate Change Conference

CRC Cooperative Research Centre (Australia)

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CSG Coal Seam Gas

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CSRM Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining

D4V Design for Values

E&P Exploration and Production

EI2018 Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018 (Commonwealth

Government)

ELSA Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (research program)

ELSI Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (research program)

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Commonwealth Government)

ERA Excellence in Research for Australia

EU European Union

FID Final Investment Decision

FFP Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism

FUIESR Framework for University-Industry Engagement with Social

Responsibility

GAB Great Artesian Basin

GC Global Compact

GHG Greenhouse Gas

xvii

GLNG Gladstone LNG Project – a joint venture between Santos,

Petronas, Kogas and Total

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

Go8 Group of Eight

GRI Global Reporting Initative

GUNI Global University Network for Innovation

HASS Humanities and Social Science

HDR Higher Degree Research

HERDC Higher Education Research Data Collection Australia

HREC Human Research Ethics Committee

IABS International Association for Business and Society

IEA International Energy Agency

IESC Independent Expert Scientific Committee (Commonwealth

Government)

IIU Integrity and Investigations Unit (UQ)

ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreements

ISO26000 International Standardisation Organisation standard for Corporate

Social Responsibility

JV Joint Venture

LNG Liquified Natural Gas

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MNC Multinational Corporations

NERA National Energy Resources Australia

NERC Natural Environment Research Council (UK)

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NISA National Innovation and Science Agenda (Commonwealth

Government)

NOC National Oil Company

OA Open Access

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

O&G Oil & Gas industry

PAI Public Accountability Initiative

PESA Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia

PRINTIGER Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in

Research (EU)

QRP Questionable Research Practices

QGC Queensland Gas Company

QCLNG Queensland Curtis Island LNG – a joint venture between Shell,

China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Tokyo Gas

R&D Research and Development

RCR Responsible Conduct of Research

REF Research Excellence Framework (UK)

ReFINE ‘Researching Fracking in Europe’ Program

xviii

RRI Responsible Research and Innovation

SAB Strategic Advisory Board (UQ-CCSG)

SATORI Stakeholders Acting Together On the ethical impact assessment of

Research and Innovation

SD Sustainable Development

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SIMP Social Impact Management Plan

SME Small-Medium Enterprises

SMI Sustainable Minerals Institute (UQ)

STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS)

STS Science, Technology and Society

TAG Technical Advisory Group (UQ-CCSG)

TASA The Australian Sociological Association

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

The Code Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

TTO Technology Transfer Office

UIE University Industry Engagement

UIRC University-Industry Research Centre

UA Universities Australia

UCL University College London (UCL)

UIDP University Industry Demonstration Project (US)

UK United Kingdom

UIIN University Industry Innovation Network

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UQ University of Queensland

UQ-CCSG Centre for Coal Seam Gas at the University of Queensland

US United States

USRA University Social Responsibility Alliance (USRA)

1

Part A: Background and Theoretical Constructs

Chapter One – Why is ensuring the integrity of industry-funded research of concern

to the university sector?

1.0 Preamble

Attracting industry interest in their research programs and managing university-industry

engagement (UIE)1 is now a vital function of contemporary universities. Student tuition

fees, research grants, philanthropy and volunteer labour are insufficient to cover the

operational costs of research in universities. While the income derived from international

students makes a more substantial contribution to universities’ income in Australia than in

most other countries, industry funding of research has become ever more critical over the

past decade. In the latest Australian Innovation System Report (Department of Industry

Innovation and Science, 2017), Australian universities reported that their income from

industry and other non-government sources had increased from AUD$331 million to

$1,139 million between 2000 and 2015. But the demand for UIE is not just coming from

universities and governments to off-set university funding, specific industries are seeking

to collaborate with universities to innovate. Businesses have been forming more

partnerships with universities to access talent and the results of research that might

provide comparative advantages to them and solve practical business challenges (Cyert &

Goodman, 1997; Elmuti, Abebe, & Nicolosi, 2005).

1.0.1 Growth of UIE in Australia

While many scholarly disciplines and industries have had an historical aversion to UIE, the

current Australian ‘Innovation Nation’ or National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) is

driving university researchers to engage with industry partners more than in the past.

Australian politicians have signalled their desire to increase the utility of university

research through championing ‘applied’ programs of research, the commercialisation of

research output and by stimulating businesses to fund research, thereby supplementing

1 When UIE is capitalised, it signifies a meta-view of university-industry engagement that encompasses all types of university-industry engagement, as well as engagement principles and engagement practices. It also describes the structures and spaces, actors and the capacity to perform UIE.

2

public (i.e. taxpayers’) funding. Public funds are increasingly directed towards university

researchers engaging with industry and their projects are evaluated by the Federal

government to “ensure that taxpayer funds (are) being targeted at research and

initiatives that[will] ultimately pay dividends for Australian young people, old people, mums

and dads” (Birmingham, 2017). Ostensibly to drive national innovation and economic

objectives, leading research funding programs from the Australian Research Council

(ARC) requires university researchers to demonstrate their engagement with industry

partners, to pursue research agendas that address current challenges, and to seek to

commercialise research output where possible.

In addition to pursuing government incentives, university leaders are also demanding that

researchers collaborate with industry partners to grow international reputation and

prestige, diversify sources of funds, and respond to local community (taxpayer) ‘real-world’

challenges. Many universities have appointed Deputy Vice-Chancellors for Industry

Engagement, established Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) and launched teams of

business and research partnership managers to support the multifaceted growth of UIE.2

The changing research funding environment in Australia is giving rise to research

governance and management as a specialist profession. Significant numbers of staff

across the government-funded research councils e.g. ARC and the National Health and

Medical Research Council (NHMRC), higher education agencies and universities are

honing their skills at developing research partnerships and at screening and managing

research grants.

Most university research is funded by government and administered by independent

statutory agencies or boards – the NHMRC, ARC and the more recently established

Innovation and Science Australia. International research collaboration is expanding, linking

Australian researchers with international researchers, businesses and research councils.

Further, industry-funding is also increasing, and university-industry research alliances are

growing in volume, intensity and complexity. This trend is likely to continue. While many

university-industry research partnerships are facilitated or funded by government through

various programs, including but not limited to the ARC Linkage program or the

2 For the purposes of this study, ‘university’ refers to a publicly funded higher education institution delivering the three missions of education, research and engagement.

3

Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) program, more funding provisions sit beyond

government-defined arrangements.

1.0.2 Governing Contemporary UIE can be complex

Significant barriers to the further institutionalisation of UIE exist and there is policy,

scholarly and managerial interest in identifying the factors that boost or hinder UIE

collaboration (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Bruneel, D’este, & Salter, 2010; B. H. Hall, Link,

& Scott, 2001). Observers draw attention to the fundamental misalignment of the university

and industrial domains and the inherent challenges in their exchanging knowledge and

technologies. Scholars, policy-makers and university management understand that UIE is

an important mechanism for driving innovation, e.g. UIE is framed as a ‘pipeline’

(Edmondson et al., 2012 ) or ‘midwife’ for innovation (Brundenius, Lundvall, & Sutz, 2009).

At the same time UIE is described as ‘dancing with a porcupine’ (Lewis, Baird, Evans, &

Ghali, 2001) and being ‘in the grip of a python’ (Healy, 2002). The scholarship points to

polarised and value-laden debates about the benefits, risks and challenges of university-

industry research linkages. Proponents of UIE would like to intensify university-industry

cooperation, whereas opponents see the spread of UIE as signalling the further co-option

of universities to market and other non-scientific ways of working and conducting business.

Both sides of the debate seek further empirical studies of the social dynamics at the locus

of the partnerships to better understand the factors contributing to the success or failure of

university-industry research joint ventures and how to better govern the partnerships.

UIE is changing various university, government and industry structures and practices. New

organisational forms (e.g. university-industry research joint ventures with share decision-

making and translational research centres) and facilitating channels (e.g. TTOs and

incubators) are becoming more commonplace, many located and operating beyond the

traditional faculties, schools and disciplinary structures and boundaries. These new

organisations are not just small versions of universities but have their own management

and governance challenges. The ambition to understand how better to organise university-

industry partnerships is spurring a continuing research agenda focussed on the analysis of

sub-institutional organisational units within universities. Some of the more common

examples include TTOs (Hockaday, 2013; Sanjay Jain & George, 2007; Siegel, Veugelers,

& Wright, 2007), science parks (Albahari, Catalano, & Landoni, 2013; Nielsen, 2016;

4

Quintas, Wield, & Massey, 1992), incubators (Berbegal-Mirabent, Ribeiro-Soriano, &

Garcia, 2015), spinouts and spinoffs (Nyman, 2015), research institutes (Philbin, Jones,

Brandon, & Hawkes, 2014), collaborative or cooperative research centres (Boardman et

al., 2013; Turpin, Garrett-Jones, & Woolley, 2011), industry liaison offices (K.-J. Lee, Ohta,

& Kakehi, 2010), contract or outsourced R&D (Aguiar-Díaz, Díaz-Díaz, Ballesteros-

Rodríguez, & De Sáa-Pérez, 2016; Mirowski & Van Horn, 2005), research joint ventures

(Caloghirou, Ioannides, & Vonortas, 2003) centres of excellence (Beerkens, 2009) and

executive training programs (M. Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). While there are traditional

delineations of responsibilities between these units between researchers, students,

administrators, marketers and teachers, the UIRC examined in this study suggests that

UIE is muting divisions of labour and changing how people work in universities.

While UIE is common, evidence suggests that the motivations for and nature of university-

industry collaborations vary greatly across disciplines and fields, industries and

organisations, creating tensions for university leaders to negotiate (Bozeman & Boardman,

2013; Bozeman, Fay, & Slade, 2013; Katz & Martin, 1997). How ‘public interests’ and the

social responsibilities of universities are construed within disciplines is frequently implicit

but becomes explicit when linking with external partners and being scrutinised by external

parties. Examples from UQ explicate some of the differences. Across the university, there

is philanthropic engagement with industry, commonly resulting in scholarships and

bursaries, named staff positions and buildings The industry links with researchers from the

professions, e.g., law, engineering or nursing, tend to focus on the industry-relevance of

teaching, the employment of graduates to fulfil societal needs and regulation of the

professions.. In contrast, university-based biomedical researchers have a symbiotic

relationship with industry, where the ‘goals’ and ‘impact’ of the research are considered in

terms of how bench researchers and clinicians work with pharmaceutical and medical

device companies to interpret the health needs of communities into research questions.

The commercialisation of research into new products, their marketing, and the uptake and

side-effects of the products are fundamental to the research process.

Sometimes there are fundamental conflicts of interest between groups of researchers

within the university. Such conflicts might arise, for example, when the one research group

is involved in the development of military equipment while others pursue a research in

Peace Studies with intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations. Other

5

examples from UQ that highlight fundamental conflicts include scholars pursing research

agendas in energy transitions for climate change having little common ground with those

assisting companies to extract fossil-fuels, or scholars extending the uptake of genetically

modified organisms (GMOs) in conflict with those promoting organic agriculture. The

tension between the autonomy of researchers to pursue their own research alliances and

the public interest is not new, but what is new is the significance of universities’ self

interest in competing and attracting resources, expanding Australia’s higher education

industry, developing brands and reputations. Some of these conflicts take place within

schools but frequently debates take place across disciplines and in the public sphere, e.g.,

UQ climate change researchers make public statements against the commercial interests

of the university’s industry partners from the coal and gas industries (Various sigantories,

2018).

There are concerns voiced in the media and across sections of academia that the

commercial or profit motive in universities can create scenarios whereby researchers place

the potential gains of the industry-partner, the university or their own personal gains,

ahead of the scientific progress or the public good (Adams, 2007; Fabbri, Lai, Grundy, &

Bero, 2018; W.-L. Wang, 2012). The implicit or explicit requirements of funders can

promote bias and conflicts of interest in their research. It is assumed that all research

organisations and researchers are vulnerable to bias, consciously or sub-consciously. The

responsibility of research organisations is to promote self-reflexivity and to establish

systems to identify and rectify bias in all forms. For example, academic reward systems –

the ways in which universities and other stakeholders, incentivise, recruit, assess and

sustain academic staff – shape researcher activity and decision-making. In many

universities ‘traditional’ and ‘commercial’ academic reward systems coexist, but with

competing conceptions of academic work and the corresponding professional norms,

rewards for achievement and consequences for the advancement of knowledge. The

competing reward systems has implications for the management of UIRCs, especially

those operating across multiple fields of research. Slaughter and Rhoades (2004)

Johnston (2017) theorise academic work is changing due to industry-funding and research

commercialisation. Similarly, this thesis posits that industry funding and commercialisation

shapes university governance and how UIRCs ensure and demonstrate the integrity of

their research.

6

The social processes accompanying boundary spanning provide fertile ground for

revealing new insights into UIE partnership success and further institutionalisation of UIE

(Villani, Rasmussen, & Grimaldi, 2017). However, finding the relevant empirical evidence

or abstract conceptualisations of work and governance practices within industry-funded

research proves to be difficult. Even though many universities are public institutions, they

are commonly secretive and competitive about UIE activities. More particularly, there is a

lack of knowledge about how universities engage with industry partners beyond the regular

government-led UIE programs and the vital industries – health, agriculture and food.

Industries that have evolved standardised patterns and indicators of UIE tend to dominate

policy discussions. Further knowledge of the relationships between Australian universities

and key industries in the Australian economy–in particular, of those export-focussed

industries with international networks e.g. mining, energy, finance and tourism, are needed

to inform policymaking and university management.

This present study contributes to the UIE scholarship with a study that examines how

university-industry research partnerships ensure the integrity of their research. While there

is growing public policy, scholarly and public interest in research integrity and Australia has

recently revised its code governing the conduct of research (2018) there is little empirical

information available about how university-industry research partnerships proactively

govern research integrity. The focus on research integrity is particularly important at this

time as there is a marked decrease in the public’s trust in science and scientific institutions

– the ‘science crisis’. Policy-makers and universities are searching for ways to make

changes in the behaviours and societal activities of the scientific community to assure the

public’s trust of scientific institutions (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2017). Thus, a pragmatic

approach, like that assumed by Wessels and colleagues (2015) is taken. Their

understanding of research integrity as the governance of research activities by research

organisations through regulations, codes of conduct, research integrity activities and

training, and promoting ethical norms is assumed. Research integrity is not only about

implementing rules it is also about creating an organisational culture where researchers

are competent and engage with the implications of their work. These requirements

demonstrate that research integrity requires principles and virtues.

7

1.0.3 Responding to the increased scrutiny of university activity by external parties

Commercial, university and public interests are not always aligned, and the ensuing

conflicts are receiving more public attention. Most notable are the industries whose

products can directly harm individuals’ health and wellbeing e.g. tobacco, alcohol, food,

pharmaceuticals and gambling. Nevertheless, ‘climate change’ and ‘sustainability’

sciences are bringing focus to industries whose products are harmful to communities, the

broader environment and national interests, e.g. agriculture (food security), health

sciences (public health) and fossil fuels (energy security). Managing the tensions inherent

at the boundary between universities and firms; local and global settings; research,

administration and teaching activities; and transparency and confidentiality are central

challenges for university leaders, and UIRCs more specifically (Rajalo & Vadi, 2017;

Watson, 2012; Watson, Hollister, Stroud, & Babcock, 2011).

Industry-funding inevitably challenges the integrity of university research (American

Association of University Professors, 2014; Bozeman, Gaughan, Youtie, Slade, & Rimes,

2016; Fabbri, Lai, et al., 2018; Gornall, 2015; McCambridge & Hartwell, 2015). Scholars

and commentators are concerned that the basic institutional features of contemporary

universities, i.e., the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and the free and open

dissemination of knowledge through teaching and publication, are being eroded by

industry funding (W. Baldwin, 1996; D. Biscotti, Lacy, Glenna, & Welsh, 2012; Zheng,

2010). Some university stakeholders worry that the interests of the industry funders will

over-ride university, community, national or environmental research interests via the

‘funding effect’ (Bozeman et al., 2016; Krimsky, 2013). A challenge for contemporary

universities, is how to govern partnerships with industry to respond to these inevitable

challenges.

There has been strong momentum in Australia and other countries in recent years to raise

the standards of research governance in universities and quantify the impact of research.

Hence, the level of government oversight in university research activities has increased

markedly. For example, Australian government agencies have embarked on a number of

initiatives, in conjunction with universities, to evaluate the performance of universities,

research and the social impact of research - the Excellence in Research for Australia

(ERA) rounds in 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2018; refining of the Higher Education Research

8

Data Collection (HERDC) data collection and analysis, and the first research Engagement

and Impact Assessment 2018 (EI2018). However, many of the university reporting

mechanisms to statutory agencies and university regulator including the ARC, NHMRC

and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) relate only to publicly

funded research grants and do not include industry-funded research.

Anecdotally, the standards related to the governance of expenditure and data

management, e.g. banning the purchase of alcohol, limiting overseas travel to economy

flights and compulsory sharing of data sets in the Australian Social Science Data Archive

(ASSDA) defined in research council funding policies, only apply to government-funded

programs and do not apply to research funds acquired directly from industry. For industry-

funded research programs in areas of public interest where there are high levels of

external scrutiny, or likely to be in the future, it is strongly arguable that their governance

standards should be at least as stringent as the government-funded research programs.

This thesis focuses on how a university-industry research centre (UIRC) is governed and

manages its research activities to assure stakeholders of its integrity.

The UIRC selected for this study is in an area of public interest. The extraction of natural

gas and other energy resources, e.g., uranium, oil, gas and coal, are significant matters in

Australia’s political, economic and social systems. This is demonstrated by the public

responses to new developments, rising domestic electricity and natural gas prices and

climate change. The sizeable and irrevocable impacts of extraction and transportation of

energy resources on the natural world and people’s health and livelihoods warrants public

interest in energy production sites, new technologies and processes. The complex nature

of balancing increasing demands for energy, energy transitions for climate change

mitigation and adaption, rapid technological and social change is spurring a board

research agenda, with contributions from many scholarly disciplines. A broad and diverse

public interests in nature, direction and integrity of energy research exists. Of particular

interest to the people of Queensland is the rapid growth and impact of the local coal seam

gas (CSG) industry which developed to export LNG to Asia.

9

1.0.4 UIE with the oil and gas industry is timely and understudied

This thesis examines UIE with an industry, which has not commonly considered by

scholars - the oil and gas (O&G) industry. Moreover, the integrity of research funded by

the O&G industry has been called into question on scientific and societal grounds. For

example, by: the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and

Technology investigation into Statoil partnerships with the University of Bergen (Hollander,

2017); the closure of the industry-funded Shale Resources and Society Institute at State

University of New York (Navarro, 2012); and the accusations of ‘frackademia’ in the United

States and other countries (C. Nelson, 2013; Public Accountability Initiative, 2015;

Readfearn, 2012; Schiffman, 2013 ; Schneider, 2015).3

Within the so-called university jeremiad literature, the prevailing notion is that industry-

funded and military-funded research is inherently biased due to unchecked national and

private interests (Baur et al., 2015; Byrne, 2010; Gornall, 2015; McCambridge & Hartwell,

2015; Mirowski, 2012; Pielke, 2007). The scope and implications of research funder bias

and perverse incentives continue to be debated, and scholars of science and society

remind us that “all research is partisan in one way or another because it involves questions

of who controls, manipulates, and establishes decisions, facts, and knowledge” (Galis &

Hansson, 2012:335). The perennial debate about how universities sustain productive

connections with increasingly diverse groups of stakeholders while keeping enough

distance to sustain critical and long-term scientific enquiry, deserves closer investigation.

This practice-orientated study is designed to highlight the differences between how

research integrity has been considered within the extant UIE literature and the practices of

a contemporary UIRC investigating a local CSG development. Within UIE literature,

research integrity is deemed to be a cardinal element of successful partnerships, but is

frequently taken-for-granted, the underlying assumption being that integrity of the research

is assured by the academic norms of self-regulation–peer review, reproduction and

retraction, rather than controlled by the partnership. However, there are multiple media

3 ‘Frackademia’ refers to O&G firms funding research at universities about unconventional gas production. It also refers to academics and universities having financial interests in the O&G industry. Critics believe that the O&G industry-funded research can blur the line between scientific research and public relations. They believe that the studies frequently report strongly optimistic modelling of the economic benefits and the limited social and environmental risks associated with unconventional gas production.

10

reports and a growing scholarship examining cases of industry-funded research highly

contested in the scientific and public spheres (as discussed in further detail in Chapter 2).

It is this tension and the necessity for UIE participants to demonstrate research integrity

and to manage the multiple pressures they face, that motivates this study. Hence, this

study explicitly focuses on the management and strategy literature in the area of UIRCs.

1.1 Challenge and Rationale

When the Centre for Coal Seam Gas located at the University of Queensland (UQ-CCSG)

was being launched, its leadership recognised the importance of establishing the Centre

as a trustworthy source of knowledge about the industry. While the partners of the UQ-

CCSG agreed that teaching and education were to be elements of the collaboration, the

focus would be on joint research and its utilisation. Companies would not just provide

funds but be involved in strategic decision-making. The UQ-CCSG, established in

Queensland, Australia, was home to the world-first export-focussed CSG to liquefied

natural gas (LNG) project. As the first round of research projects funded by the Centre

were announced, the Interim Director, Professor Chris Moran, was quoted as saying,

There is significant concern in the community about the emerging coal seam gas industry. The Centre has the opportunity to provide processes and indicators to assist in dealing with these concerns in future development. We want to address the areas of community concern, which is why groundwater assessment and cumulative impact projects are the first to be announced by the Centre (Tomlinson, 2012).

Another research project commissioned soon after was focussed on the research

governance in contentious policy arenas and was to be conducted by the Centre for Social

Responsibility in Mining (CSRM).

The initial stage of the CSRM research integrity project included the recruitment of two

PhD students to the team and the production of an internal report providing a review of the

state-of-the-art practice in the governance of research integrity. The two PhD candidates

were awarded Australian Postgraduate Award scholarships and UQ-CCSG ‘top-up’

scholarship funds to pursue projects related to the ‘governance of research integrity in

CSG research’ and to contribute to the continuing research efforts of the CSRM. To

ensure the separation of the two PhD projects from one another, the researchers chose to

focus on different aspects of the integrity project–one on the relationship between science

11

and policymaking, and the other on UIE. This thesis is the end-product of the second of

these two PhD projects.

As a PhD project undertaken in the CSRM, one of the seven research centres in the

Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI), this study is expected to contribute to the sustainable

development of the extractives sector. The SMI4 is one UQ’s eight major industry-

university research institutes and was established to support the sustainability challenges

facing the global mining and resources industries. At UQ, research institutes generally do

not enrol under-graduate students. The UQ-CCSG was the latest centre to be established

within the SMI. Each of UQ’s eight institutes have evolved independently of each other,

and is a product of a fortuitous and opportunist alignment of personalities, policy and funds

(Dodgson & Staggs, 2012). The current work of the SMI builds on the fifty-year history of

conducting ‘in the tent’ research with industry partners from the mining sector. This

tradition was continued with the UQ-CCSG. This thrust is evident in Chapter 7 of this

thesis, when reflecting on socially responsible UIE. Consequently, this study contributes to

a broader program of social research being undertaken in and around the UQ-CCSG. The

research complements and supports other research that is underway and that seeks to

uncover the social relevance of scientific organisations in the coal seam gas debates, and

the capacity of universities to contribute to public debates about CSG.5

1.2 UQ-CCSG seeking evidence for decision-making

Scholars, university leaders and policymakers can benefit from research that

demonstrates how UIE practices are changing the work occurring in universities and how it

is governed. To use the analogy of an iceberg: only a small proportion of the contributing

strategies, structures and practices of UIE are visible to parties outside of the partnership.

Of the small section of the UIE iceberg that is visible to parties other than the participants

in the partnership, an even smaller amount can be measured. And yet an even smaller

amount is routinely measured and analysed by participants or observers. Given the

immensity of what is typically hidden from view, the author turned her focus away from

looking for good research integrity practices for the UQ-CCSG leaders to consider.

Instead, the opportunity of accessing the day-to-day operations of a UIRC and operating

4 For more information see http://www.smi.uq.edu.au/ 5 Researchers contributing to this line of enquiry include Naomi Smith, Will Rifkin, Martin Espig and Kristen Lyons.

http://www.smi.uq.edu.au/

12

within an unfolding, highly contested scientific debate provided a unique setting to

investigate an important dimension of UIRC governance which is frequently assumed

rather than problematized in UIE scholarship–that is, research integrity.

Current knowledge about research integrity

Research integrity is undeniably important and prized in public and private spheres. While

a frequently cited term, it assumes different meanings depending upon the context.

Turning to the etymology of the term ‘integrity’, one etymological dictionary offers two

distinct strands of meaning. One from Old French – integrité - meaning correctness,

honesty, blamelessness and purity; and the other from Latin - integritatem – meaning

soundness, firmness and wholeness. Thus, research integrity is tied to both an ethical

condition, correctness, and a structural condition, soundness. This research considers how

these two components of research integrity are, or could be, integrated into the

governance frameworks of a UIRC to ensure the utility and social desirability of UIRC

research.

Reinforcing the notion that research integrity is a consideration for university-industry

research partnerships, is von Schomberg’s (2013) definition of responsible research and

innovation. Von Schomberg notes that considerations about the social responsibilities of

research are frequently marginalised in university strategic management, except, for

example, the continuing debates around genetically modified foods. He believes that the

integrity of research will be strengthened through organisational actors throughout the

innovation ecosystem, for example UIRCs, acknowledging that the responsible conduct of

research and research integrity are collective responsibilities. Research organisations

should reflect upon and engage with stakeholders about the societal values in which

research is anchored upon. Von Schomberg defines responsible research as

a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society). (p63)

Bolz and Bruin (2019) confirm that the von Schomberg’s definition is the most influential

definition of responsible research and research integrity, in terms of citations. In the

Australian policy context research integrity and responsible conduct of research are terms

13

frequently interchanged, acknowledging that there is a long history of researcher and

research organisation responsibility implicit in the context of research integrity, including

but not limited to falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP). More recently as the social

and economic impacts of research are considered, the broader social responsibilities of

research are becoming more critical.

Research integrity in this thesis is constructed as an essential element of university

governance–as a system comprising multiple interdependent structures and practices.

This perspective assumes that research integrity is culturally construed in terms of

‘professional integrity’, ‘intellectual integrity’ and ‘financial integrity’, and is subject to social

interpretation (Shaw, 2018). Policy and scholars’ interest in research integrity has

progressed within the contexts of technology assessments, Ethical, Legal, Social Aspects

(ELSA) and other Science and Society studies (R. Owen, Macnaghten, & Stilgoe, 2012);

(von Schomberg, 2013); (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013) Thus, research integrity

results from compliance systems, ethical systems and political systems involving people,

organisations, principles and compromises. Research integrity results from research

organisations, research processes and team structures addressing their contributions to

current societal and environmental challenges (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Stilgoe et al.,

2013). A distinguishing element of recent research integrity policies is the change from the

focus on the ‘upstream’ funding decisions or the ‘downstream’ regulatory decision, to the

focus on how to govern research integrity throughout the entire research process: from

establishing research agendas, to quantifying societal impacts (Schuurbiers, 2011).

The integrity of industry-funded research in a UIRC is the outcome of activities where

virtuous principles are defined and assured, and where research practices stabilise around

people and organisational structures. It is the absence of research integrity that potentially

faults UIRCs, researchers and research. For the purposes of this study, research integrity

refers to the qualities and characteristics of the research organisations, processes and

outcomes, resulting from how UIRCs ensure their research is conducted in accordance

with the norms and requirements that inform and guide research activities in Australian

universities, without deviance due to any inappropriate influences. From this perspective,

research integrity is more than the opposite of research misconduct, which has to do with

the definition, identification, judgement and consequences of researcher malfeasance.

Research integrity is about creating organisational systems that boost the quality and

14

salience of research, that is, making changes to the university organisational structures

and practices to meet growing stakeholder expectations, changing community and

professional standards, and ways of conducting research. The broader perspective of

research integrity foregrounds the ethical dimensions, or societal obligations of research

organisations in addition to regulatory and legal compliance.

The increasing public, policy and scholarly interest in research integrity is shown via: the

existence of world conferences on research integrity6; the emergence of the Responsible

Research and Innovation (RRI) paradigm in Europe; the updated Responsible Conduct of

Research (RCR) curriculum in the US; the 2016-2018 review of the Australian Code for the

Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (the Code); the launch of journals focussed on

responsible research and research integrity7; editorials in various journals, including

Nature (Titus, Wells, & Rhoades, 2008), Science (Nicholas H Steneck, 2013), and

Research Policy (B. R. Martin, 2013); and articles from various disciplines (J. P. A.

Ioannidis, 2005; McNutt & Nerem, 2017). The author commits to giving a voice to

‘research integrity’ within a complex operating environment.

Locally, the interest in research integrity is demonstrated by the recent review and

rewriting of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) and,

in the Higher Education Standards Framework, the inclusion of requirements for

universities to have in place specific measures to safeguard research integrity. The

emphasis is on the responsibilities of researchers and institutions for: data management,

treatment of research subjects, addressing allegations of research misconduct, authorship

and publication practices, and conflicts of interests among other issues directly related to

the research process. This focus on ethical research practices can be termed ‘microethics’

(Bird, 2014; Herkert, 2005). More recently, in the U.S. and Europe, there has been

increased attention given to the broader social context and to the collective professional

responsibility of universities and researchers to attend to the ethical implications of their

work in society. ‘Macroethics’ is a term which can be used to describe this socially

responsible science. One of the fourteen responsibilities identified in the Singapore

Statement for Research Integrity is “Societal Considerations: Researchers and research

6 In 2007, the first World Research Integrity conference was held in Lisbon. Since that time there have been five conferences held every 2-3 years http://www.researchintegrity.org/ 7 Research Integrity and Peer Review launched in 2016 and the Journal for Responsible Innovation launched in 2014.

http://www.researchintegrity.org/

15

institutions should recognise that they have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits

against risks inherent in their work” (emphasis added) (World Conference on Research

Integrity, 2010). This study focuses on how UIRC govern to ensure this societal or

‘macroethics’ interpretation of research integrity is considered.

As becomes apparent, the integrity of UQ-CCSG’s research has not been universally

accepted. The scrutiny, questions and criticism of the Centre, its researchers and its

research, highlight the complex governance challenges facing contemporary university

research partnerships with the O&G industry. There are specific challenges for universities

at this time when national and global goals for sustainability require ‘transition’ energy

sources and ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions8. Many universities have clearly

defined missions to contribute and develop expertise and technologies for global

sustainability. For example, UQ’s Vice-Chancellor’s statement regarding sustainability on

the university’s website states,

The University of Queensland (UQ) has established itself as an institution of global standing and is committed to providing leadership in sustainability and climate change response. UQ is a signatory to both the Talloires Declaration and Universitas 21 “Statement for Sustainability” to affirm its commitment to fostering an institutional culture for sustainability (University of Queensland, 2019).

As apex knowledge producers and recipients of substantial public funds, universities are

expected to profoundly reflect on their roles and responsibilities regarding hydrocarbons.

The manifestation of environmental advocacy movements in public institutions draws

attention to universities and their possible role in conserving the status quo in

hydrocarbon-based energy as well as to their being on the ‘wrong side of history’ through

their collaboration with the O&G industry (National Committee for Research Ethics in

Science and Technology, 2014). This operating context suggests there need to be new

ways of organising and evaluating the performance of UIE, particularly that in league with

the O&G industry, with regards to sustainability objectives.

1.3 The Problem Statement

8 Human activities are affecting the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases namely carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and synthetic gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) (https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/climate-system/greenhouse-gases/ )

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/climate-system/greenhouse-gases/

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/climate-system/greenhouse-gases/

16

Research should be novel, important and tractable (Jensen, 2013). Thus, the motivation

behind this study is to investigate an aspect of UIE that is important to both practitioners

and society more generally, but which has thus far been overlooked by UIE scholars. The

integrity of industry-funded research continues to be challenged, but the boundaries

between the context on industry-funded research and the phenomena of research integrity

are not clear. Research integrity is rising as a public policy issue to be solved, in that it is

articulated through media coverage, policy debate, research council funding patterns and

growth in scholarly literature (S. R. Davies, 2018).

Through narrowing the gaze to a single UIRC, this study has allowed the researcher to

gain a nuanced understanding of key elements of research integrity governance in

university-industry research partnerships and establish the grounds for a future stream of

research. This thesis contributes to the scholarly understanding of UIE by considering an

original, relevant and immediate challenge (Maylor, Blackmon, & Huemann, 2017). That is,

the study explores the following research question: How does an Australian university-

industry research centre, funded by the O&G industry, attempt to safeguard and

demonstrate the integrity of its research?

Having a more nuanced understanding of research integrity in a UIRC is important from

the perspective of UIE scholarship for two major reasons. First, an examination of UIRC

governance mechanisms can improve scholarly insight into the social realities of UIE and

how university-level values and initiatives around research integrity are steered within

UIRCs. Thus far, stimulating UIE has largely been a ‘top down’ or macro agenda pursed

by various national and transnational organisations, and the paucity of knowledge about

UIE practices at the organisational and sub-organisational (meso- and micro-) levels has

been recognized (Allen, 2013; Bell et al., 2014; K. Miller, McAdam, & McAdam, 2016). In

the UQ setting, UIE, research integrity and enterprise risk are driven by separate, centrally

located offices and lack an explicit and cohesive approach to safeguarding research

integrity in UIE. The author is concerned that much research integrity research is focussed

on conceptual research or on empirical research focussed on individual researchers and

students. How research groups organise and enact university-driven research integrity

objectives, is frequently overlooked. Additionally, UIE research is turning its focus to how

university-industry partnerships work around potential impediments, e.g., stakeholder

perception that all industry-funded research is biased or trivial. The author contends that

17

research integrity practices within a UIRC need to be investigated empirically to guide

university organisational strategies and practices.

The second reason for why the research question is important, is that knowledge is

fundamental to innovation, and context shapes how knowledge is created and exchanged

(Dodgson & Gann, 2010). Hence, understanding the Australian context and social realities

of how universities engage with industry partners from the O&G industry is crucial for

innovation policy. There is a paucity of research about governing Australian UIE

(c.f.Gunasekara, 2006; G. Harman, 1999; Hickey, 2015; Plewa, Korff, Johnson, et al.,

2013; Plewa & Quester, 2006, 2007; Yencken & Gillin, 2006; Zubielqui, Jones, Seet, &

Lindsay, 2015). This should be rectified, as innovation scholars have long argued that

national (Lundvall, 1992), regional (Asheim, Smith, & Oughton, 2011) and sectoral

(Ponchek, 2016) contexts shape how knowledge is exchanged between universities and

industry partners. Numerous researchers have shown that the bulk of revenue in

universities is generated by the life sciences, and that most research on UIE and research

commercialisation focuses on the life sciences. This is confirmed by Australian

Government Innovation statistics (Department of Industry Innovation and Science, 2016).

Thus, the regulations and norms of behaviour are largely derived from the policies set for

the life sciences (Colyvas, 2007; D. Mowery, Nelson, Sampat, & Ziedonis, 2004).9

To this end, the initial tranche of fieldwork and the literature review focussed on defining

how UIE scholarship approaches UIRC governance for research integrity. The second

tranche of fieldwork identified the essential characteristics of governance arrangement in

the UQ-CCSG which ensure the integrity of its research. The analysis sought to establish:

1. What factors shape how research integrity work is carried out in the UQ-CCSG?

2. What research integrity work is carried out in the UQ-CCSG?

3. What good governance measures could support the integrity of industry-funded

research?

Together, responses from these questions allowed for the development of a revised model

of research integrity in the UQ-CCSG and the analytical framework for socially responsibly

UIE. The key definitions used in this thesis are listed in the table below.

9 ‘Norms of behaviour’ refers to the customary and frequently unplanned rules that regulate and coordinate various social activities.

18

Table 1: Key Terms Used in Thesis

Term Definition

University-Industry Engagement (UIE)

UIE is a two-way process, encompassing all forms of cooperation with the

goal of generating mutual benefit for the collaborators. Activities range from

formal to informal, individual to collective and are with or without financial

benefit to the participants.

University-Industry Research Centre

(UIRC)

A legally-binding university-industry research partnership, where decisions

are shared between the university and companies. The organisation

resulting from the research partnership operates beyond the common

faculties / school arrangements and develops its own organisational identity

and networks, separate from that of the ‘parent’ university and company.

Research Integrity

Research integrity is the governance of research activities by organisations

through a framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes. The

objective is to ensure research is developed, undertaken and reported

according to contemporary legal, professional and ethical requirements and

standards in an organisational setting underpinned by a culture of integrity.

Research integrity encompasses the mechanisms by which research

organisations are held to account.

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is the breach of standard codes of scholarly conduct

and ethical behaviour in the conduct and publication of publication of

professional scientific research. Frequently referred to as falsification,

fabrication and plagiarism (FFP).

Scientific Record

The Scientific Record is the documentation of knowledge accumulated by

mankind. Researchers have the duty to add knowledge to this record

through publishing but also ensure the integrity of existing works through

critically assessment and building upon existing findings, improving them

and checking their reproducibility. Peer-reviewed articles, published in

academic journals form the cornerstone of the modern scientific publication

system.

Macroethics Macroethics refers to the collective social responsibility of researchers.

Microethics

Microethics refers to the relationships between researchers and their

colleagues, employers, collaborators and clients.

Research Governance

Research Governance are the frameworks through which research

organisations are accountable to external stakeholders about the quality,

safety and ethical acceptability of the research that they undertake,

sponsor or permit.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

The responsibility of organisations for the social and environmental

implications of their activities, not only their economic consequences.

Responsible Conduct of Research

(RCR)

RCR is a term used in the US to describe conducting scientific research

with integrity. It involves developing awareness of and applying established

professional norms and ethical principles in all aspects of scientific

research.

Responsible Research and Innovation

(RRI)

RRI is a term used in the EU to describe scientific research and

technological development processes that consider effects and potential

impacts on the environment and society.

Socially-responsible UIE

Socially-responsible UIE is a term used in this thesis to describe the

governance of UIRCs to ensure that they are responsible for the social and

environmental implications of their activities.

1.4 UIRCs and Institutional Theory

Institutional theory is a commonly used and powerful way to illuminate organisational

issues, including those in the context of universities (Yuzhuo Cai & Mehari, 2015)

19

Institutional theorists argue that institutional environments pressure organisations to

appear legitimate and conform to prevailing social norms (P. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; P.

J. DiMaggio, 1988); (Barringer & Harrison, 2000); (Greenwood, 2008). Controversies and

scandals are providing the impetus for university responses to research integrity. As

universities are notoriously risk-adverse and protective of their reputation, they respond to

challenges to their legitimacy. Accordingly, institutional theory is germane to gaining

insights into the UQ-CCSG. Universities and firms therefore form research partnerships 1)

because it is expected by higher education and industry regulators (to produce knowledge

and evidence to underpin policy and law-making); 2) to obtain legitimacy for their

organisations, products, industry and their people–that is, for their knowledge, expertise

and the essentiality of their products, in the case of the O&G industry.

Generally, institutional theory is used to explain behaviour at both the organisational and

the individual levels, while emphasising the significance of the situation or context in which

the actors are embedded (in contrast to the more easily generalisable explanations

provided by rational actor theories).This perspective focuses on the nature of institutions in

specific contexts since they have different norms, values, rules and culture that shape their

organisational and individual behaviours. Thus, one of the crucial issues for a university-

industry research partnership is to assure stakeholders of its legitimacy as a research

organisation, and of the legitimacy of the partner industry and the technologies, processes

and chemicals used in that industry (Sanjay Jain & George, 2007), e.g. hydraulic

fracturing, fracking, or stimulation, as it is variously referred to.

As the UQ-CCSG was established, it was challenged by an array of university

stakeholders who had expectations about what a university-industry partnership should

entail, based on their previous experiences e.g. an R&D contract, a government-led CRC

or ARC Linkage grant or a science engagement program. However, what was envisaged

by UQ-CCSG leaders did not fit the traditional models of UIE. Instead, a governance

model was agreed to through a series of discussions, compromises and agreements. The

resulting research joint venture contract and UQ-CCSG governance model assure

corporate members have a continuing input into the Centre’s research agenda and

government agencies are represented at key Centre governance meetings.

20

1.5 The setting – An Australian university, the O&G industry and the

unconventional gas controversy

Scholars and policymakers are currently theorising the connections between innovation

and higher education and deciding on how to develop relevant policy responses and

management tools. Organisational, industry and national contexts shape how knowledge

is exchanged, so it is necessary to build an evidence-base of location-specific UIE

practices to inform policy-making and decision-making (Polt, Gassler, Schibany, Rammer,

& Schartinger, 2001; Sharif, 2006). The extensive literature review undertaken for this

study highlights the lack of scholarship about the Australian experience of UIE and the

O&G industry as well as the lack of UIE knowledge contribution to unfolding public

controversies. The UIE literature is dominated by the experiences in the United States,

United Kingdom and Europe. This finding supports Cunningham et.al., who identified that

most authors of qualitative studies of technology transfer are affiliated with locations in

North America, UK and Canada. They propose that this pattern is due to the emergence

and growth of the field of technology transfer research in the US over the past 30 years,

triggered by political interventions such as the Bayh-Dole Act (Cunningham, Menter, &

Young, 2017). Localised knowledge of the Australian experience is needed not only to fill

gaps in the scientific record, but to underpin policy-work and university-decision-making.

A detailed examination of the organisation and governance arrangements UQ-CCSG is

warranted at this juncture for several reasons. Initially, this study is consistent with the

view that UIRCs are: becoming more prolific; promote innovation and/or economic growth

(Debackere & Veugelers, 2005; Mueller, 2006); are hybrid organisations (Bodas Freitas &

Nuvolari, 2012; Jongbloed, 2015) established within universities to bridge science and

non-science, private and public spheres (K.-J. Lee, 2014; K.-J. Lee et al., 2010; Philbin,

2013; Turpin, Garrett-Jone, & Rankin, 1996); and are shaped by the university, company,

industry and field of research contexts (Audretsch, Lehmann, & Warning, 2004; Calcagnini

& Favaretto, 2016; Calcagnini, Giombini, Liberati, & Travaglini, 2016; A. Muscio,

Quaglione, & Vallanti, 2014). UIRCs are complicated organisations in a permanent state of

organisational disequilibrium (McAdam, Miller, & McAdam, 2017); managing multiple and

conflicting stakeholder goals (Fernandes, Pinto, Araújo, Pontes, & Machado, 2016;

Gattringer, Hutterer, & Strehl, 2014; K. Miller, McAdam, & McAdam, 2016; Pinto &

Fernández-Esquinas, 2016); and are fragile, agile and requiring marketing prowess to

draw resources and people together (Boardman, Gray, & Rivers, 2013; Rivers & Gray,

21

2013). Together, these works point to the need for more specific knowledge about the

everyday routines and structures of UIRCs.

UIE in the Extractives Industries

UIE in the extractive industries, such as minerals and O&G, have largely been overlooked

by scholars. This pattern mirrors the findings of Cunningham and colleagues (2017) who

found that the technology transfer literature was dominated by the ‘health and

biotechnology’ as well as ‘manufacturing’ sectors. They would like to see more research

on “…sectors that are constantly increasing in importance such as the energy industry

shifting towards renewable energies.” (p. 941). This lacuna is beginning to be attended to.

The increased demand for energy and national energy security, new technologies and

climate change, have captured the imagination of an increasing number of energy social

scientists. Commentators and scholars are grappling with how to engage with the rapidly

changing O&G industry. Some universities are strategically closely engaging with the

industry, building on historical ties. Some examples are Statoil’s research partnerships

with the University of Bergen; BP’s links with Cambridge University; and Shell’s links with

Delft University. Other universities are the recipients of government incentives (e.g. R&D

tax concessions for O&G firms) and edicts (e.g. licencing requirements for production

prescribe investment in local universities– more common in developing economies).

At the same time, there is an intensifying of UIE with the O&G industry, and there are

some concerns that universities located in ‘oil patches’ or ‘gas fields’ are being captured by

the corporate goals of ‘big oil’ companies (G. Gray & Carroll, 2018; Washburn, 2010).

There is also a growing ‘fossil-free movement’ gaining momentum in some prominent

universities in the developed world, where staff, students and other interested parties are

wanting universities and other public institutions to disengage with the O&G industry

(Godoy, 2017; Grady-Benson & Sarathy, 2016).

The UIRC at the centre of this case is funded by the O&G production industry. The O&G

industry is one of the world's largest industries as gauged by market and company

revenue, and is dominated by transnational ‘oil majors’, national oil corporations (NOCs),

oil independents and the oilfield services sector. As oil and gas are often located together

in the geosphere, it is assumed that most companies will be involved in the extraction of

22

both resources if cost-effective, e.g., references to ‘oil companies’ assumes that

companies can be involved in the extraction of gas. The O&G industry is frequently divided

into three sectors: upstream, midstream and downstream. The upstream gas sector is also

commonly known as the exploration and production (E&P) sector. The midstream sector

involves the transportation (by pipeline, oil tanker, rail, barge or truck), storage, and

wholesale marketing of gas. The downstream sector commonly refers to the purifying of

raw natural gas, as well as to the marketing and distribution of products derived from

natural gas.

Research Collaboration around Natural Gas

This study focuses on the relationship between UQ and a group of four large upstream

CSG producers working across Southern Queensland, ostensibly established to feed an

export-focussed LNG plant in Gladstone. The location of the projects is significant as many

production wells and facilities are located in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), Australia’s

largest groundwater basin and one of the largest natural underground water reservoirs in

the world. The GAB currently supports wide-ranging agricultural industries, inland

population centres, mining activities and other industries. The LNG plants are located in

the port of Gladstone, which is located among the southern reaches of the Great Barrier

Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system. As the developments in Queensland are the

first CSG-LNG projects to be established in the world, there is much interest in how the

projects evolve and their foreseen and unforeseen impacts on the surrounding

environment. As this study examines a significant and emerging relationship between a

local university and the large gas producers, it suits the use of an exploratory qualitative

case study. The benefits associated with this type of analysis is that the networks of

actors, the local historical context and the narratives shaping the university-industry

research partnership are considered (Lehtimaki & Peltonen, 2013).

As organisations around the world grapple with climate change mitigation, natural gas has

emerged as an important source of global energy. The International Energy Agency (IEA)

predicts that the demand for natural gas will outstrip demand for other hydrocarbons in the

coming years, even though gas is yet to stabilise its position between coal and renewables

in the global energy market mix. Extracting gas and transporting it to those who desire it is

a highly technical endeavour, and firms from the O&G industry are funding research at

23

universities around the world to further optimise the process (King, 2012; Uddameri,

Morse, & Tindle, 2015). Nevertheless, scholars show that energy R&D investments are

relatively small in magnitude (as a percentage of national R&D expenditure) and that

energy R&D investments in most nations follow the booms and busts of oil price

movements (Sims Gallagher, Grübler, Kuhl, Nemet, & Wilson, 2012).

One interviewee suggested that much university-industry research about natural gas

focusses on improving understanding of the resource and its surrounds, creating technical

solutions to operational challenges or high-level analytics needed to optimise production

and fulfil regulatory requirements. Natural gas and LNG production is data-intensive but

often the information is fragmented - located within producers, service firms, consultants,

industry regulators, academia and impacted communities, with few mechanisms or

commercial reasons to merge and analyse data from multiple sources. Unlike the

biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMO) crops, there is not a concurrent

research agenda investigating the social impacts of scientific progress. Additionally,

national or commercial interests often ensure data is not shared with other actors.

1.5.3 Australia’s Burgeoning Natural Gas Industry

In Australia, the lack of integration of data sources is exacerbated by the rapid expansion

of the gas industry, with many new players becoming involved. The gas industry in

Australia has grown from multiple domestic markets to being integrated into the global

market, with aspirations to be the second largest exporter of LNG after Qatar (Thurtell,

2018). Currently, the Australian gas industry comprises between 100 and 200

international, domestic majors and juniors. Gas producers are classified as majors or

juniors, with reference to their capitalisation and the extent of involvement in various

stages of the energy production. Some of the ‘major’ integrated firms have interests across

the entire LNG lifecycle from exploration, production and transportation, through to

distribution and retail, whereas the ‘juniors’ have interests specific processes. In

developing a conceptual model for an energy technology innovation system, Sims

Gallagher and colleagues (2012) estimate that the private sector invests five times as

much as the public sector does in fossil-fuel supply R&D (p145). The myriad of

interdependent relationships between governments and the O&G industry is significant for

understanding the nature of research into natural gas.

24

Knowing about the interdependency of governments and the O&G industry and the

isolation of their linkages from the broader community, is crucial to understanding how

university-industry partnerships function. While there are expectations that new O&G

projects will lead to increased national and state economic productivity in and around the

projects, Hirschman’s (1977) economic analysis discusses the isolated ‘enclaves’ of

extractive projects, e.g. the projects are not linked directly to energy consumers; employ

limited local or untrained labour; use foreign technologies; and most revenues from

exporting accrue directly to the government. These features suggest that it is difficult to

clarify where the public and community interests lie. While Hirschman’s analysis was

developed in the context of developing nations, it is relevant to a resource-intensive

economy like that of Queensland. The Queensland government collects significant

revenue from O&G projects and thus becomes a critical driver of growth and development

of the CSG industry, rather than the businesses themselves. The government has multiple

and potentially conflicted responsibilities in gas developments including being the

regulator, the key beneficiary and arbitrator of risks and benefits at the individual-,

community- and State-level. Historically, there have many examples of resource

developments with corruption arising at various points along the value chain – from

licencing of exploration and production rights, regulation of operations and the collection of

revenue. Various global initiatives including the Extractive Industries Transparency

Initiative are relevant to Australian development and seek to encourage transparency and

good governance.

The Australian and Queensland governments’ ability to capture revenue from the gas

development, distribute benefits and effectively allocate resources to regulate the industry

underpin the industry’s social licence to operate (SLO).10 The gas industry’s SLO is not

only shaped by the duration, size and influence of the industry prior to the start of the

projects, but also by political and psychological factors that come into play as the projects

progress. That is whether the development meets the public expectations about the

positive economic and social impacts projected and whether a government-business elite

develops to defend industry interests as the revenue flows (Lahn & Stevens, 2017).

10 Social Licence to Operate (SLO) is a term that has been widely accepted in the mining and minerals industry for nearly twenty years. SLO generally describes the informal acceptance or approval a local community extends to a mining operation or development.

25

To take this idea of government-industry interdependency in resource developments

further, scholars have identified a set of integrative dynamic capabilities that define the

relationship between government and the O&G industry, by minimizing uncertainty in the

behaviour of all partners (Åm & Heiberg, 2014). The notion is that the O&G industry and

government need to collaboratively build an efficient industrial ecosystem over many

decades in order to optimise the extraction of fossil-fuels such as natural gas Using

examples from Norway, the latter authors show how there, the government and O&G

industry are inextricably linked through sharing the ownership of fossil fuel resources, and

therefore the benefits, risks, revenues and operating costs. Technical experts and

researchers located across companies, government agencies and universities work

together on various technical challenges to improve the efficiency of the industry, modify

regulations at the basin-level11, and thus together maintain the O&G industry’s social

licence to operate. In contrast, Australia does not have a long history of gas production for

export, nor are there mechanisms in place to invest directly. The synergies and

interdependence of government and industry occurring in Norway are not replicated in

Australia.

An initial online search identified several UIRCs investigating unconventional gas funded

by O&G firms and joint ventures around the world. The high oil prices and the ‘golden era

of gas’ predicted by the IEA (2012) heralded increased interest in unconventional gas

research. Unconventional gas research is not a core scientific discipline in its own right.

Rather it is the convergence of many different fields of research, from which it holistically

integrates and applies research findings to achieve improvements in productivity,

profitability or sustainability. Understanding the position of unconventional gas research

within a web of interacting and overlapping science, social science and technology is

crucial to understanding UIE with the O&G industry. The UIRCs were first established in

the US, the birthplace of the unconventional gas production industry. However, as other

countries considered developing, or started to develop unconventional gas resources,

UIRCs were established in other countries e.g. Australia, The Netherlands and China.

Table 2 below lists eleven UIRCs that receive funds from O&G firms and joint ventures.

11 A basin is a depression in the crust of the Earth in which sediments accumulate. If hydrocarbon source rocks occur in combination at the appropriate depth and duration of burial, then an O&G system can develop within the basin.

26

Table 2: Unconventional Gas University-Industry Research Centres with funding from industry sources12

Abbreviation Name University / Universities Location Country

Year Established

Corporate Partners

MCOR

Marcellus Centre for Outreach and Research

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, Pennsylvania US 2010

Marcellus Shale Coalition, General Electric, ExxonMobil & others

CCSG

Centre for Coal Seam Gas

University of Queensland

Brisbane, Queensland Australia 2011

QGC (formerly BG Group now Shell); Santos; Arrow (Shell-Petro China joint venture); Asia Pacific LNG (ConocoPhillips and Origin Energy)

SUTUR

Shell-UT Unconventional Research Program

University of Texas Austin, Texas US 2011 Shell

SERC

Subsurface Energy Resource Centre

Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio US 2011

Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Halliburton, Schlumberger

SO

Shell Oxford Research Program

Oxford University Oxford

United Kingdom (UK) 2012 Shell

UNGI

Unconventional Natural Gas Institute

Colorado School of Mines

Golden, Colorado US 2012

ENI, Halliburton, HESS, Schlumberger

ReFINE

Researching Fracking in Europe

Newcastle, Durham, Cambridge, Stanford, Strathclyde, Keele and Hull

Newcastle, Durham, Cambridge, Stanford, Strathclyde, Keele and Hull UK 2013

Shell, Total, Chevron, GDF Suez

SGI Sustainable Gas Institute

Imperial University London UK 2014

BG Group (now Shell)

CBMCE

Chevron Basin Modeling Center of Excellence Texas A&M

College Station, Texas US 2014 Chevron

GRI

Global Research Initiative in Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources: Beijing

University of Calgary Beijing

Canada / China 2014 Kerui Group

RCGI

Research Centre for Gas Innovation

University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil 2015

BG Brazil (now Shell), FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation)

12 Data sourced from media, internet and company annual reports.

27

The list of UIRCs is not exhaustive and only shows that the case at the centre of this

thesis, the UQ-CCSG, is one of a growing network of industry-funded research programs

about unconventional gas. Unlike other industries where knowledge and innovation is

directed towards the consumer of the products and services, the crucial innovation

stakeholders in CSG are not the consumers of LNG and natural gas (Perrons, 2014;

Perrons, Burgers, & Newton, 2018). Somewhat differently, the key innovation stakeholders

in the upstream gas industry are the producers, the service companies, land-holders,

regulators and others with responsibilities for the land and people where the gas

exploration and extraction infrastructure are located. In broad terms, most UIRCs are

focussed on technical programs seeking to assist decision-makers understand the risks

and benefits associated with launching an unconventional gas industry or improving global

production. The UQ-CCSG, in contrast, is seeking to optimise the emerging CSG gas

developments the Surat and Bowen basins and LNG plants in Gladstone, in context of the

natural world and the local operating context.

O&G companies do not consider universities as the first partner of choice for establishing

R&D partnerships. This is in part due to the dominant role of service companies and

specialised consultants, which conduct research specifically targeted to the industry

(Perrons, 2014). This pattern of engagement for innovation is not surprising given the

technical needs of the industry, the vertical and horizontal integration across the global

O&G industry and the traditional physical and cognitive distances between O&G

production activities and consumers (Dale, Osegowitsch, & Collinson, 2014; Mason,

2015a). That said, there is a long history of the ‘oil majors’ engaging with specific

universities for certain functions e.g., recruitment of graduates and research in the physical

sciences e.g. earth sciences and chemistry. More recently, governments have directed

O&G companies to engage with local universities through production sharing

arrangements, local procurement policies, project approvals and other contractual and

policy mechanisms, as shown in open source data on natural resource project payments

(Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2015).

In addition to governments driving UIE with the O&G industry to support innovation and

growth within the industry, there are internal drivers within firms to collaborate with local

universities. Interviewees report that global O&G firms entering a new market (i.e.

Queensland) purposefully seek to develop relationships with a diverse range of social

28

institutions such as industry regulators, education and other service providers and other

stakeholders. One O&G industry respondent reported that alongside his core technical

responsibilities, he was ‘vendor manager’ for his firm’s relationships with UQ and C&K

(Creche and Kindergarten Association Limited).

The reasons for a university partnering with industry are understood by those involved

within their own frames of reference, whether they be technical, financial, political or social.

Nevertheless the increasing political interest in and audit of university-based research

activities, especially in terms of costs, integrity and societal impact, means that the

external oversight of UIRCs is becoming more prevalent (O’Neill, 2015; Shore & Wright,

2015). Political Corporate Social Responsibility scholars point to the significance of

companies developing alliances with government agencies, universities and other public

organisations to reach corporate objectives (Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Scherer, 2017;

Scherer & Palazzo, 2011)}. For example, Royal Dutch Shell reportedly seeks to participate

in public policy debates relevant to its business directly or through intermediaries, such as

universities (Skjærseth & Skodvin, 2003). While the independence of much industry-

funded research is not questioned, some scholars have shown that universities have been

coerced into prioritising research to align with the commercial goals of the companies.

Furthermore, the universities and researchers are being influenced to produce and

disseminate knowledge uncritical of their O&G industry funders (Goozner & Gable, 2008;

Readfearn, 2012; Washburn, 2010). Consequently, the extent to which universities are

interdependent or co-dependent on industry partners, and the impact of their dependency

on new knowledge, continues to garner debate in scholarly and policy circles. As the

European Ombudsman stated, “The view that academia, academic institutions and

individual academics are independent of business must be based not on any preconceived

assumptions” (European Ombudsman, 2015).

Sustainability and climate change scientists point to the significant opportunity for the O&G

industry to work with universities to mitigate the impacts of climate change and shape

better energy futures (Findler, Schönherr, Lozano, Reider, & Martinuzzi, 2019). It is been

shown that the major firms in the O&G industry, through their industrial processes and

products, are significant contributors to climate change. Heede (2014) found that increases

in atmospheric concentration of industrial methane and carbon dioxide between 1751 and

29

2010 can be traced back to 90 firms producing oil, natural gas, coal and cement. Of these,

the top ten firms in terms of cumulative emissions are the major O&G firms.

Until recently many O&G firms have shown reluctance at engaging with the climate

change debates at a political, commercial or technical level. Some firms even funded and

lobbied for climate change denial (Oreskes & Conway, 2010). Yet, as Bach (2019)

discusses, climate change is being socialised throughout the O&G industry and many

firms have explicit strategies for incorporating the risks and benefits associated with

climate change into organisational strategies and decision-making mechanisms.

Consequently, there are multiple opportunities to engage with the research universities at

the forefront of climate science, namely members of the University Climate Change

Coalition and individual institutions such as the University of British Columbia. Additionally,

the universities provide opportunities and channels for firms indirectly provide input into

government policy-making and regulatory processes, e.g. through industry-funded

scientific research which underpins regulation and legislative in agriculture (Ulrichsen &

O'Sullivan, 2015).

Most research, and more specifically industry-funded research, is of little interest to those

beyond the research partnership. However, sometimes there are multiple interests in the

research questions, processes and outputs. Controversy, like a shot of adrenalin, tends to

ignite, accelerate and intensify stakeholder interest and potential scepticism in UIE

research and organisational arrangements. The intensity and duration of the CSG

controversy characterises the nature of the UIRC and its relationships with internal and

external stakeholders. Numerous researchers have established that existing university

governance and management mechanisms are not capable of ensuring and demonstrating

the integrity and independence necessary of industry-funded research. For example,

Marion Nestle has published a study on how food and beverage companies unduly

influence human nutrition research (Nestle, 2013) (and Bero and her colleagues have

investigated how the tobacco, food and pharmaceutical industries shape university

research agendas, putting commercial interests above public health interests (Bero, 2005,

2018; Fabbri, Holland, & Bero, 2018; Fabbri, Lai, et al., 2018).

Concerningly, the conduct of a single researcher can wreak havoc with the reputation and

the public trust in his or her research group or home institution (Andereggen, Vischer, &

30

Boutellier, 2012). These scholars demonstrate that it is not just that some doubters

perceive bias in university-industry links, but that there really is some bias in industry-

funded research towards commercial interests, to the detriment of public community

interests. The potential for industry-funded research to be viewed with scepticism by

outsiders and become embroiled in controversy is increasing, due to the simple fact that

there is more industry-funded research occurring at Australian universities (Department of

Industry Innovation and Science, 2016; Plewa, Davey, Meerman, & Galan-Muros, 2017;

Plewa, Davey, Meerman, & Galan Muros, 2017).

Controversies are becoming increasingly topical in the science, society and organisational

studies literature. Scholars have shown that controversies magnify and make explicit the

hidden social dimensions of science, and point to the ways in which political struggles and

values debates shape the organisation and output of research (Cordner, 2015; Patriotta,

Gond, & Schultz, 2011; Sharman, 2015). Several scientific controversies with significant

public dimensions exist around various university-industry research partnerships, including

those between universities and the tobacco (Bero, 2005), genetically modified organisms

(GMO) foods (Diels, Cunha, Manaia, Sabugosa-Madeira, & Silva, 2011) and gambling

industries (Cassidy, Loussouarn, & Pisac, 2014).

While the scientific community has a positive view of its own integrity and many believe in

the view that science is self-correcting, this attitude is not unanimously shared (Alberts et

al., 2015; J. P. Ioannidis, 2012). The integrity of industry-funded research can be

challenged from many directions. Industry-funded research can be seen to draw university

resources from more deserving research programs (B. Martin, 2014; Rudy et al., 2007;

Sharman, 2015). More particularly, there is concern that research funding from industry

sources leads to sloppy or fraudulent research (Horbach & Halffman, 2017), lax

organisational practices (Ben-Yehuda & Oliver-Lumerman, 2017), biased research (Baur

et al., 2015) and personal and organisational conflicts of interest (Resnik & Elliott, 2013).

Industry-funded research can be seen to unjustly influence the regulatory operating

environment to benefit commercial interests, consumer behaviour or stakeholder

acceptance (D. Biscotti, Glenna, Lacy, & Welsh, 2009; D. L. Biscotti, 2010; Bozeman et

al., 2016). Further examples of how industry funding negatively impacts university

research includes wasting resources (Michalek, Hutson, Wicher, & Trump, 2010) and

disgracing the researchers and organisations involved (Hussinger & Pellens, 2018).

31

For Australian universities, it follows that the particularities of how universities and the

O&G industry engage should be examined, considering the growing importance of the

natural gas production in regional economies. At one level, there is a paucity of knowledge

about how these traditionally low-medium technology sectors link with universities.

Although the OECD commonly classifies the O&G producers as low-technology sectors,

some scholars suggest this is a miscalculation and that O&G companies in developed

economies are key innovation actors, linking with universities and consultants to utilise big

data and new technologies in exploration and production (Perrons, 2014; Woiceshyn &

Eriksson, 2014). At another level, there have been several lessons and cautionary tales

emanating from universities in the US regarding conflicts of interest, industry capture and

breaches of research integrity in the unconventional gas arena (Hardie & Smith Devetak,

2014).

1.6 Introducing the Case: Questioning the Integrity of UQ-CCSG Research

From 2012 to 2017, the Centre for Coal Seam Gas was funded by the University of

Queensland 22% (AUD$5 million) and industry members 78% (AUD$17.5 million). An

additional AUD$3 million was provided by industry members for research infrastructure

costs. The industry members were QGC/Shell, Santos, Arrow and APLNG. The integrity of

UQ-CCSG’s research was challenged from when the idea of the UIRC was first mooted

within UQ, and doubt as to its integrity continued to manifest in a variety of ways. As

illustrated by the following vignettes, the challenges to the integrity of the UQ-CCSG

research included community protests and complaints, the questioning of academic

expertise in public arenas, media coverage of corrupt university activities and the

emerging critique of ‘big oil’ influence on politics and public institutions through popular

culture and scholarship.

The O&G industry attracts frequently strong negative response from people (Hofmeister,

2011), with some believing that O&G firms engage in phony morality, fake news and that

they lack social responsibility, e.g., involvement with long-running corporate tax avoidance.

There is a stream of scholarly and non-scholarly material revealing the powerful and

interconnected social networks between fossil-fuel companies and cultural, education,

financial and government institutions (G. Gray & Carroll, 2018; Public Accountability

Initiative, 2015; Readfearn, 2012; Schneider, 2015). These authors highlight the gaps

between organisational rhetoric and practices. For example, Shell asserts that three core

32

values – honesty, integrity and respect for people – govern the company. However, ‘gripe

sites’ such as www.royaldutchshellplc.com aggregate media and provide original

commentary about Shell, including accusations of bribery, contribution to climate change

and fraud. For some, any alliance with the fossil fuel companies, or O&G producers more

specifically, is not justifiable.

On a bright winter’s day in 2012, students and staff of the Research Integrity Coalition

affixed a large banner to one of the sandstone buildings in the Great Court at UQ, “Our

research integrity has been fracked”. The banner in purple and white, a familiar

combination of colours mandated by the University marketing team’s corporate palette,

included imagery of a drill through UQ. The Research Integrity Coalition called on UQ

leaders to guarantee the independence of the research produced by the UQ-CCSG to

safeguard it from bias and industry influence. ‘There are many unknowns and uncertainties

with CSG, and we believe that research into them is crucial. We can’t afford to have

research compromised by industry influence’ (Sykes, 2012). The student-led campaigns

voiced concerns about the lack of non-industry participation in shaping the agenda for the

embryonic research centre (Lyons & Richards, 2013; Woodward, 2012).

The above was but one event in a series of public demonstrations, on-line media

campaigns, petitions and commentaries supported by students, staff and other university

stakeholders questioning the intentions and governance arrangements of the UQ-CCSG

organised by the UQClimateforchange and the Research Integrity Coalition groups (Hare,

2012). Stories emerged suggesting that the governance of the UQ-CCSG was

compromised by the undue CSG company presence on various decision-making groups in

the Centre, and no CSG opponents, resulting in bias. There were further claims that CSG

companies would provide false data to universities, corrupting public policy decision-

making, and claims that universities forsake their independence when funded by industry

(Paul Cleary, 2011:78; McHugh, 2012).

Around the same time as the protests, the interim Director of the UQ-CCSG was accused

of being too closely aligned with the CSG industry. While he was negotiating the

establishment of the UQ-CCSG, the Director also headed up the SMI, an industry-facing

research organisation located on the UQ campus. The SMI was mainly funded by the

mining industry and many research findings were only accessible to the funders. In

http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/

33

addition to his university-based roles, the Director was also a member of several expert

panels at the Federal and State levels providing advice to the regulators of CSG projects.

One was the Federal Government’s Interim Independent Expert Scientific Committee

(IESC). The IESC had been established in 2012 under the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) in response to community concerns

regarding the impact on water from coal seam gas and coal mining. As the members of the

interim groups were seeking to be appointed to the ISEC, media reports circulated

questioning the independence of IESC members, given their links to the coal and CSG

industries. The Director was identified as one of the ISEC members having shared

interests with industry, even though much of his career had been as a researcher in the

federal government agency – the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO) and universities. While segments of the media suggested that there

were too many conflicts of interest between his roles (Paul Cleary, 2011; Cleary, 2012),

another commentator suggested that CSG was a nascent industry and that it was virtually

impossible to find an independent expert (Carney, 2012). It is difficult to get both

independence and expertise simultaneously, as most of the experts have worked in the

industry, and therefore they can automatically be conflicted Industry funds finance most of

the UQ-CCSG research and consultancy work.

Also surfacing in 2012 and 2013 were a series of high-profile, yet unrelated cases of

research and administrative misconduct at UQ reported in the media. Examples include:

potential high-level staff nepotism in a medical admission (Walker, 2011); hundreds of

members of the public who attended the UQ dentistry clinic sent for expensive X-rays at

businesses connected to two senior members of staff, even though there were appropriate

machines available at the university (Solomons, 2012); multiple scholarships for

disadvantaged undergraduate students retracted (Kidd & Miles, 2014); and fabrication of

results in research into Parkinson’s disease (Howells, 2013).

The cases eventually led to the resignation of members of the Chancellery and the

criminal prosecution of several researchers (Anonymous, 2015; Walker, 2011) These

events brought about Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) scrutiny of

UQ’s integrity and accountability frameworks and drew attention from the media. The

34

events resulted in institutional-wide organisational changes.13 While the UQ-CCSG

leadership was keen to promote UQ’s research integrity measures in its communications

to concerned external stakeholders, they were stymied by UQ’s internal review and

decision-making processes. For many months in early 2013, there was little clarity around

the content of the research integrity policies and procedures, nor was it clear who was

responsible for their implementation. A new Integrity and Investigations Unit (IIU) was

established in 2012 and senior staff appointed in late 2012. This resulted in an extensive

review of the relevant organisational structures and policies. Since that time, the division of

responsibilities between the IIU, the Office for Research Integrity and the Enterprise Risk

Services unit have been clarified and the policies and procedures updated.

1.7 Significance of this Study

While the research strategy for this study involved collecting, comparing and aggregating

multiple data sources to find patterns of governance of research partnerships for research

integrity, it does not follow the ‘interpretative’ approach to new knowledge traditionally

found in sociology and anthropology, and more recently in management (Boje, 2014;

Silverman, 2013). Instead, a conceptualisation of research integrity governance is derived

from the UIE scholarship and challenged and refined by a case study of the UQ-CCSG.

Leximancer is used to analyse the nature of research integrity governance, trends shaping

how research integrity is governed and organisational strategies employed to safeguard

and demonstrate the integrity of industry-funded research.

Leximancer was developed to identify significant ideas, themes and concepts from

unstructured text (A. Smith & Humphreys, 2006) The software has been used in several

fields to analyse the nature and evolution of professional knowledge bases e.g. cross-

cultural psychology (Cretchley, Rooney, & Gallois, 2010) and information systems

(Indulska & Recker, 2010). The studies draw together the key ideas and concepts from a

large number of publications into analytical frameworks to guide future research.

Replicating this process, the Provisional Model for Research Integrity Governance from

the UIE scholarship. The Provisional Model guides the data collection and analysis for this

study and is presented at the end of the literature review in Chapter Two.

13 For more information about the University’s Reform Program see https://reform-program.uq.edu.au/update-reform-program

https://reform-program.uq.edu.au/update-reform-program

https://reform-program.uq.edu.au/update-reform-program

35

The findings from the case study of the UQ-CCSG are presented in the form of

observations, quotes from documents and indirect quotes in Chapters Four, Five and Six.

The revised Model for Research Integrity Governance, based on the results of the UQ-

CCSG case study, are presented in Chapter 7. In response to the management and

governance challenges identified by the participants of the UQ-CCSG – the body that

partially funded the researcher during the PhD – this research takes a further step. That is,

to develop an analytical framework for socially responsible university-industry engagement

to integrate research integrity concerns into the governance arrangements of the UQ-

CCSG and other UIRCs. In line with management discipline traditions, the motive of the

research is to provide enough generalisation to allow the findings to be applicable not only

to the UQ-CCSG participants, but to others interested in the governance of research

integrity.

The longitudinal single case study presented in this thesis brings four needed elements to

UIE research. First, there is the vital role of integrating social interpretation and

organisational theories into UIE scholarship. Commonly, UIE scholarship has focussed on

describing UIE arrangements with the view to normalising and institutionalising UIE. There

is not a sustained tradition of theorizing UIE within a context or interpreting the social and

cultural implications of UIE for participants and policymakers. Thus, this study draws on

one of the strengths of a single organisational case study: that is, the ability to bring focus

to the operating context and to provide a holistic explanation and social interpretation of

UIE. As becomes apparent, it is timely to critically examine existing, and often implicit or

overlooked conceptual frameworks for research integrity in the context of industry-funded

CSG research.

Regarding the second necessary element for research into UIE, a deep knowledge of the

complexities of research integrity governance has been achieved through extensive

fieldwork in and around the UQ-CCSG for approximately three years and developing

enduring relationships with some of the participants in and around the UQ-CCSG. This

contrasts with much UIE scholarship, which is conducted and reported by the researcher

and administrators participating in the partnership, rather than by interested and social

scientist observers. The depth and breadth of analysis reveals previously overlooked

aspects of UIE governance.

36

With respect to the third element, rather than continuing the tradition of scholars and

policy-makers in framing UIE as legitimate or subject to unending normative debates, this

research instead seeks to augment the decidedly normative and frequently uncritical UIE

literature with an empirical study of the often ambiguous governance mechanisms meant

to ensure research integrity. Heeding cautions from scholars of anthropology and Critical

Management Studies to challenge underlying ‘root metaphors’ of phenomena presented in

the literature, this research seeks to problematize the integrity of industry-funded research

(Mats Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Brown, 2016; Hickey, 2015; Shore & McLauchlan,

2012). To this end, an extensive literature review, in the tradition of Onweugbuzie and Fels

(2016) depicts first, how UIE relations are evolving and second, the ‘social turn’ in UIE

research. The growing significance of governing university-industry research partnerships

to ensure research integrity is revealed.

Regarding the fourth element mentioned above, the impact of the increasing presence and

authority of environmental advocacy and the fossil-free divestment movements in public

institutions is noted. The study reveals how universities engage with resource companies

in this operating context (Ayling & Gunningham, 2015; Bangs, Bernard-Herman, Maxmin,

& Williams, 2013; Grady-Benson & Sarathy, 2016). In Australia, there is a long tradition of

local mining companies linking with the CSIRO and universities to conduct research, which

has been crucial to the evolution of the mining industry here (Birrell, 2006; Mardle, 2012).

In contrast, the O&G industry is more commonly thought of as being a relative newcomer

to the Australian marketplace and is controlled by foreign interests. Most global O&G R&D

is conducted in countries which traditionally have had strong O&G industries – United

States, Norway, Canada, Netherlands, China and the United Kingdom (Azevedo Ferreira

& Rezende Ramos, 2015; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010; Perrons, 2014; Woiceshyn &

Eriksson, 2014). Thus, universities are increasingly sites for democratic and scientific

debates about the role of natural gas in future energy solutions (Hardie, Smith Devetak, &

Rifkin, 2016).

1.8 Structure of the Thesis The structure of this thesis is consistent with accepted practices for PhDs in social

research (D. Evans, Gruba, & Zobel, 2013). The thesis consists of eight chapters. This

introductory chapter lays the groundwork for the study through describing the

37

phenomenon, context and scope. The way in which the challenge of safeguarding

research integrity in UIRCs is approached is presented. In addition, this chapter defines

the theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

The objective of Chapter Two is to identify the intellectual contours of the emerging UIE

field by a bibliographical analysis of 1700 + journal articles to determine the dominant

frameworks and models and investigate how research integrity is regarded. In response to

the challenges of incomplete theorisations of research integrity within UIE, an initial model

of research integrity governance in UIRCs is proposed.

Chapter Three argues that an in-depth qualitative and longitudinal case study was

necessary to ‘unearth’ the institutional and organisational factors shaping UIRC

governance for research integrity, and it presents the methodology employed in this study.

Greater detail is provided in the Appendices at the end of the thesis.

A detailed examination of the case study of the UIRC is presented in Chapter Four. The

chapter describes the organisational features of the UQ-CCSG that shape research

integrity governance. While comparisons are made between the UQ-CCSG and other

research organisations progressing knowledge about the coal seam gas developments in

in southern Queensland, Australia, the focus is on the Centre.

In Chapter Five, a thematic content analysis of the data is presented, to determine not only

whether the findings conform to the Provisional Model for research integrity governance,

but also to consider whether there is a need to review the model to accommodate missing

themes. The chapter considers the systemic and university contexts in which the UQ-

CCSG is located. Dividing the case study into the layers of analysis introduced previously,

i.e. systemic, university and UIRC, is consistent with extant case studies of organisations

and is an appropriate method for examining organisational work of the type scrutinised

here. (Farquhar, 2012; Kohlbacher, 2006). This analysis lends support to the notion that

contextual factors shape how UIE and research integrity are increasingly significant but

essentially unstable and socially-constructed concepts. Thus, there is a need to anchor

conceptualisations of research integrity governance to the social responsibilities of UIRCs

and how UIRCs engage with external parties.

38

Chapter Six reconsiders the Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance

presented in Chapter Two, in view of the findings in Chapters Four and Five. The findings

are drawn into a revised Model of Research Integrity Governance and draws attention to

how UIRC governance practices can strengthen the integrity of industry-funded research.

In Chapter Seven, it is argued that the explicit definition of UIRC social responsibilities

provides the ‘meta-language’ – or a framework of common principles and business

practices – to shape research integrity governance. It also sets the space within

‘politicised’ UIRCs for the negotiation of trade-offs between public welfare and private

gains, and science and non-science.

The concluding chapter, Chapter Eight, summarises the research findings, thereby

extending the knowledge of research work in controversial contexts. It presents the main

contributions and the limitations of this thesis, and provides directions for future research.

The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates how the thesis is structured, showing the links between

the chapters.

39

Figure 1: Thesis Structure

1.9 Contributions

The core contributions of this study are twofold: 1) the development of provisional and

revised frameworks that depict the vital elements of research integrity governance; and 2)

the presentation of an analytical framework for socially responsible university-industry

engagement for UIRC participants. The multi-level approach to understanding provides

40

new theoretical perspectives on research integrity and UIE, contexts that ought to be

examined more closely by management scholars. The analytical framework of research

integrity adopted offers a fresh perspective on the governance and strategies used in UIE

through focussing on issues and dynamics that arise in an extreme context for research

integrity governance. Commonly, there are two main organisational approaches to

research integrity: disciplining research misconduct, and promoting the virtues of research

integrity to staff. In contrast, the case of the UQ-CCSG reveals a dynamic depiction of

research integrity, with four additional approaches emerging from the findings presented in

Chapters 4 to 6. The following chapter progresses this argument by providing insights into

how research integrity is conceptualised within the UIE literature, and culminates in the

presentation of a provisional framework for research integrity governance.

41

2. Chapter Two – Research Integrity in the University-Industry Engagement

Literature

2.0 Preamble

An initial review of the scholarly and policy literature suggested there were multiple

explanations for and potential organisational responses to the ‘research integrity’

challenges faced by the UQ-CCSG. As there is no delineated stream of research

examining organisational responses to the integrity of the research being challenged, the

initial sweep of the literature was broad. Three main fields of research provided relevant

insights. First, the higher education literature provided a rich array of research about most

aspects of university operations including branding, reputation, management and the

collective identities of universities. Second, the organisational studies literature showed

that the university is a setting for investigating organisational formation, change and

identity. Third, the public policy literature speaks to the role of government in defining

industry, science and higher education policy, defining university roles and responsibilities,

the linkages between businesses and universities. The public policy literature is

underpinned by economic analysis of UIE. The initial literature review revealed that the

notion of research integrity is not new, but the constructs are not standardised or well-

established within or across the fields of research.

As the study progressed, the UQ-CCSG evolved and there were more challenges to the

integrity of its research. The complex and changing nature of the organisation suggested

that a theoretically-informed qualitative case study, using multiple sources of data, in the

tradition of Alvesson et. al. would be appropriate (Matts Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Mats

Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Mats Alvesson & Willmott, 2012). The approach would reveal

how the UQ-CCSG attempted to safeguard and demonstrate the integrity of its research. It

would be possible to characterise the phenomenon of research integrity governance and

reveal key enabling factors. To do this, a more narrowly defined analytical framework was

needed to direct and frame the study. To this end, this study draws upon the emerging and

field of UIE scholarship, a field of scholarship which is underpinned by the methods and

insights from the previously mentioned literature – education, public policy and

organisational management. As the research progressed, it was revealed that the

42

innovation, science, technology and society (STS), economics and scientometrics14 were

emerging fields of importance in the context of university-industry collaborations.

The origins of research integrity governance can be traced back to discussions of

responsibilities in technology, science and universities which have emerged from the

scholarly and policy communities since the 1940s (Durbin, 1992; Legge, 1973). The

notions of research and technology development as being value-free is refuted in multiple

ways. While debates about individual and organisational responsibilities for research

integrity have been visible in some fields, for example, biosciences, medicine and

engineering, through the embedding of ethical standards, lessons and review processes,

currently interest is expanding into other fields (Ribeiro, Smith, & Millar, 2016). Over the

past years, innovation, science and research policies in the US, Europe and other nations

have given prominence to policy agendas focussed on Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects

(ELSA), Research Integrity, the Responsible Conduct of Research and Responsible

Research and Innovation (R. Owen et al., 2013; Shamoo & Resnik, 2009; Nicholas H

Steneck, 2006; Zwart, Landeweerd, & Van Rooij, 2014). Research integrity governance in

an Australian UIRC therefore can be interpreted as the organisational structures and

practices ensuring the integrity of industry-funded research in multiple domains, including

science, government, legal, community and commercial. That is, research integrity

governance is how UIRCs ensure the integrity of research when negotiating the

relationships between the research and the stakeholders with interests in the research,

and more broadly science and society.

In this study, the global research enterprise is conceived of as a growing and significant

undertaking, regulated by normative values including, but not limited to, social progress,

equity and the cohesion of humankind. The interdependence of local, national and global

scales is particularly significant for understanding the governance challenges of UIE. In

this light, UIRCs have a shared interest in stabilising relationships within humanity, and

between humanity and the environment. Particularly relevant to this study is the changing

contribution of the O&G industry to the global energy mix and ideas of sustainability.

14 Scientometrics is the study of analysing and measuring science, innovation and technology.

43

The extensive review of UIE literature presented in this chapter reveals that the growing

interest in safeguarding the integrity of industry-funded research has its roots in the

seismic changes in the purposes and operations of universities. Beside the many debates

around the characterisation of the ‘disrupted university’, scholars have engaged with the

effects of these changes on university engagement with external stakeholders generally,

and research partnerships more specifically. Thus, UIE should be regarded in light of

Barnett’s (2011, 2013, 2016) general reframing of universities as being complex social

institutions with multiple unaligned goals and realities.

This chapter has four parts. The first introduces the nature and boundaries of UIE

scholarship and explains how the literature review presented in this chapter was

conducted. The second section uses basic bibliometric analysis to reveal the major

themes in a corpus of UIE articles. The analysis cuts across the research streams rather

than trying to deepen any particular one to understand the notion of research integrity and

challenges to it. In doing so, the analysis shows that there is a broad range of opinions –

from the university jeremiads and critics of ‘science for sale’ to the propaganda of

policymaker enthusiasts. Most UIE scholarly research emerges from five key disciplinary

bases and traditions, which do not always align. From analysing the corpus in its entirety,

seven significant systemic changes that are shaping contemporary UIE are identified.

These are discussed in more detail in Chapter Six – The UQ-CCSG and the Provisional

Model for Research Integrity . The third section of this chapter considers how the UIE-

O&G industry relationship is considered in the UIE literature, providing some historical

context for the UQ-CCSG. The fourth considers how research integrity has been viewed in

the UIE literature, providing the basis for the provisional analytical model for research

integrity governance. This is the analytical framework that guides the empirical data

collection and analysis.

2.1 Introducing UIE Scholarship

UIE has evolved into an identifiable domain of ‘frontier research’ with a formal disciplinary

structure including degree courses, chairs in universities, conferences and journals (Feng,

Zhang, Du, & Wang, 2015; Skute, Zalewska-Kurek, Hatak, & de Weerd-Nederhof, 2017).

Various fields of enquiry have contributed to a growing and increasingly cohesive UIE

scholarship over the past three decades. UIE scholarship is located within wider domains

of enquiry into how knowledge is created and shared, innovation, and how universities and

44

industries function. The trajectory of the UIE scholarship reveals that the practical

challenges of communicating complex scientific and technological ideas, accessing and

evaluating commercially sensitive data and addressing novel ethical challenges has made

theory-building difficult.

UIE is a phenomenon resistant to a fixed definition, as the practices and institutions reflect

the socio-political context of the day. UIE has become a prominent higher education

project and an increasingly significant area of research and policy-making. It encompasses

and cuts across pre-existing forms of academic and administrative activity, i.e., lifelong

learning, expert and non-expert dialogues, public relations, marketing, R&D and discovery.

Industry partnerships are supplanting some of the traditional university stakeholders, such

as students and research councils, in university strategic planning (Benneworth &

Jongbloed, 2010). Despite the way ‘research commercialisation’ dominates the

contemporary political discourse and research agenda, UIE takes many forms. Thus, UIE

scholarship is an emerging field of research driven by public policy goals, the financial

imperatives of the commercial and research organisations involved and new ways of

progressing knowledge.

An advantage of the dynamic nature of UIE and the immaturity of the discipline is that

there is scope for an assortment of approaches to probe under-explored social

phenomena and concepts like research integrity. The literature reveals a ‘social turn’

occurring in UIE research – scholars are beginning to examine the social dimensions of

UIE, in contrast to the technical and commercial (Philbin, 2013). When this study

commenced in 2013, there were no published ‘state-of-art’ reviews of UIE scholarship to

guide the author’s entry into the field of research. Thus, it was necessary to undertake an

extensive review of the literature to position and frame this study. This gap has now been

remedied and the field of research has coalesced around key research topics. As Table 3

shows, there have been several reviews of specific elements of UIE: UIE and open

innovation (M. Perkmann & Walsh, 2007); technology transfer (A. K. Agrawal, 2001;

Geisler & Rubenstein, 1989); knowledge transfer (Geuna & Muscio, 2009); university

entrepreneurship (Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007); and UIE for innovation (Cottrill,

Rogers, & Mills, 1989). Since then, holistic notions of UIE, collaboration and cooperation

have become prominent, incorporating multiple strategies, pathways and parties.

45

Table 3: UIE Literature Reviews 1986-201815

15 The literature reviews published since this study commenced are presented in bold. This highlights the rapid progression of the UIE field in the past five years.

Author (year) Title of Paper Focus Method

Geisler (1993)

Technology transfer: toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions Technology transfer

Narrative literature review

Bozeman (2000)

Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory

Domestic technology transfer from universities and government


Agrawal (2001) University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions

Knowledge transfer from universities to industry


R. O'Shea et.al. (2004)

Universities and Technology Transfer: A Review of Academic Entrepreneurship

Academic Entrepreneurship

Systemic review leading to 6-part classification

Rothaermel et al (2007)

University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature

University Entrepreneurship

Comprehensive review leading to conceptual framework

Geuna and Muscio et al (2009)

The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature

Governance of University Knowledge Transfer Critical literature review

Cottrill et.al (2010)

Co-citation analysis of the scientific literature of innovation research traditions

Diffusion of innovations and technology transfer Bibliometric analysis

Larsen (2011) The implications of academic enterprise for public science: an overview of the empirical evidence

Negative consequences of UIE

Review of empirical studies

Teixeira & Mota (2012)

A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links

Bibliometric review of university-industry links Bibliometric analysis

Perkmann et al (2013)

Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations

Academic engagement and commercialization Narrative review

Bronstein & Reihlen (2014)

Entrepreneurial university archetypes: A meta-synthesis of case study literature

Entrepreneurial universities

Meta-analysis case study literature

Meyer, Grant, Morlacchi & Weckowska (2014)

Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective Triple Helix Bibliometric analysis

Hsieh et al (2014)

A literature review with citation analysis of technology transfer Technology transfer Citation analysis

Mendoza (2015)

Industry-Academia Linkages: Lessons from Empirical Studies and Recommendations for Future Inquiry

Industry-Academia Linkages in the US

Critical literature review

Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa (2015)

Universities-Industry Collaboration: A systematic review

University-Industry Collaboration Systematic review

Feng, Zhang, Du & Wang (2015)

Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation

University–Industry cooperation Bibliometric analysis

Battistella et.al. (2015)

Inter-organizational technology /knowledge transfer: a framework from critical literature review

Technology/ knowledge transfer

Critical literature review resulting in conceptual framework

Gerbin & Drnovsek (2016)

Determinants and public policy implications of academic industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework

Knowledge transfer in the Life Sciences

Critical literature review resulting in conceptual framework

46

In broad terms, the results of the previously conducted literature analyses are presented in

terms of the public policy, social and economic factors driving the growth in UIE

(e.g.Mendoza, 2015), the nature of UIE partnerships and the factors that shape it (e.g. M.

Perkmann & Walsh, 2007), and the impacts and outcomes of UIE collaborations (e.g.

Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015). These three dimensions form the basis of the conceptual

model which drives this study i.e. factors characterising the governance of research

integrity in UIRCs, the nature of research integrity governance and the effects and

outcomes of research integrity governance. The analytical framework in its entirety is

presented at the end of the chapter, Figure 4: Provisional Research Integrity Governance

Analytical Model.

The trajectory of published reviews about and related to elements of UIE suggest that the

research agenda now incorporates a broader range of insights from multiple perspectives,

fields and scales of analysis than previously. Scholars are moving away from viewing UIE

as a series of discrete programs that manage, for example, an R&D project or graduate

employment. Instead scholars are identifying ideas from multiple fields of enquiry that are

relevant to understanding the UIE phenomenon. More recent scholarship covers multiple

forms of knowledge exchange with industry partners and evaluates UIE in the context of

innovation, regional economic development, and the progress of society in general. The

literature also reveals the nature and trajectory of each industry’s engagement with

universities, which differ from one another, e.g., those of the biotechnology industry, the

‘military-academic complex’ and agribusiness (Blumenthal, 1994; Giroux, 2007;

Rosenberg, 1994). In this study, UIE manifests as an industry funded research joint

venture established to coordinate knowledge about an emergent local industry, “a

coordinated access point to address the community, government and industry challenges”

(University of Queensland, n.d.)

Earlier scholars noted that industry funds potentially, but not inevitably, challenge and

undermine integrity (Blumenthal 2003; T. D. Warner & Roberts, 2004). More recently,

scholars have noted that although research integrity is a vital element of successful

Skute et.al (2017)

Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations

University-Industry Engagement

Bibliometric literature review

Cunningham et. al (2017)

A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research

Technology/ knowledge transfer

Review of qualitative case study literature

47

university-industry partnerships, the theoretical conceptualisations and translations into

engagement structures and practices continue to be opaque (Ribeiro et al., 2016).

Examination of the literature reinforces the notion that policy-makers and university

leaders are seeking to coproduce knowledge about UIE with scholars to further codify and

improve UIE practices. In this study, inability to demonstrate research integrity to

interested stakeholders is considered a barrier to successful research partnerships and the

further institutionalisation of UIE. Thus, the focus is on characterising the work being

undertaken in a UIRC to ensure and demonstrate the integrity of industry-funded research.

2.1.1 Approach to the Literature Review

Bibliometric analysis is increasingly being used by organisational scholars to characterise

emerging fields of research such as family firms and entrepreneurship, national innovation

studies and university-industry collaborations (López-Fernández Ma, Serrano-Bedia Ana,

& Pérez-Pérez, 2015; Skute et al., 2017; Sun & Grimes, 2016). This approach reveals the

boundaries of the field, contributing authors and publications and the main themes. The

initial insight from the scholarship was UIE literature includes publications from a broad

range of journals, representing many disciplinary interests.

This chapter draws from a corpus of 1758 peer-reviewed journal articles from 537 journals,

dated from 1986 to 2016. The number of journals may not be precise, as journals have

changed their names and may have been miscounted. The literature analysed in this study

is large and draws from a broader range of publications than previous reviews in the UIE

field. The goal is to build a multi-faceted perspective of the work undertaken to ensure

integrity of industry-funded research that can be built on, challenged and corrected by

others. The initial examination of the literature was inductive, and sought patterns and key

themes. Subsequently, deductive approaches were employed, as the researcher searched

for notions of university engagement with the O&G industry and research integrity in the

same corpus of articles. Together these three approaches to examining UIE scholarship

provide insights into the nature of research integrity governance in industry-funded

research centres, the factors that are shaping it and how ensuring research integrity can

become a significant function of university-industry partnerships.

48

Computer-assisted / aided qualitative discourse analysis software (CAQDAS) –

Leximancer – was used to assist with analysis of the corpus, as the software interface

provides visual maps linking concepts in the original text to a global perspective of the

entire data-set (the software is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three – Research

Design). The software also calculates word frequencies and allows the researcher to link

back to in-text quotations. Although visual-first analytic methods are still in their infancy,

tools such as Leximancer provide a powerful technique for developing global and

consolidated analyses of emerging fields of scholarship. The visual motifs allow

researchers and practitioners from disparate fields to find patterns of relevance, both

anticipated and unanticipated. Two examples of studies using Leximancer to examine

academic literature include a review of how design science is incorporated into the

information systems literature (Indulska & Recker, 2010) and identifying key themes in the

forty year history of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Cretchley et al., 2010).

2.1.2 Collecting the corpus of UIE articles

The search and selection process of UIE literature was conducted in two waves. The first

wave was conducted in mid-2015. The initial search replicated the bibliometric analysis of

UIE literature by Feng, Zhang, Du, & Wang, but stipulated a different timespan (2015).

Feng and colleagues identified nearly 600 articles regarding university-industry links

published between 1966 and 2013 through the Web of Science database. When a search

with similar parameters was conducted in February 2015 over 1,000 journal articles were

retrieved. The search terms were “academic–industry” and “university–industry” and the

setting of the core collections in the database were “SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI,

CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, CCR-EXPANDED, IC”. The time span was

limited to ‘1986-2016’ and document type limited to ‘peer-reviewed articles’. To ensure the

accuracy of the results, the titles and abstracts of each article were checked prior to

entering the citation data and articles into EndNote. Finally, 971 records were selected.

The results confirm that the key focus on UIE research is focussed on understanding and

improving management processes and evaluating inputs and outputs, including but not

limited to knowledge and technology transfer, intellectual property management, skills

training for the workplace, industry and professional body input into the curriculum, student

engagement with industry, university procurement and use or leasing of facilities. The

49

potential risks and harms associated with UIE, opportunity costs, social justice and other

impacts are rarely addressed by the UIE researchers.

The second wave of the literature review took place in late 2016. This time the idea was to

capture the widest possible viewpoints – business, law, anthropology and other areas that

are not thoroughly indexed in Web of Science. The initial search had started to identify key

conceptualisations of UIE (listed in Table 5), journals, clusters of researchers and other

characteristics of the UIE field of research. Extending the findings of the first wave involved

identifying relevant keywords, synonyms and word variants, e.g. alliance, association,

collaboration, co-operation, and employing standard techniques using Boolean logic.

Multiple keywords searches were carried out across multiple databases indexing literature

from Engineering, Geosciences, Mining, Environmental and Agricultural Sciences, Health

Sciences and Science. The specific database search systems employed were ProQuest,

Web of Science, Scopus, One Petro and Informit Australian databases.

The second wave could be referred to as a ‘thorough literature review’, that is a study that

seeks to answer a clearly formulated question by identifying, describing and evaluating the

extant literature. The goal is to understand generalisations and cumulative knowledge of

UIE relevant to the UQ-CCSG. The key elements of the literature review are presented in

Table 4. What differentiates this review from a systematic review is that the author

acknowledges there is bias at various levels. For example, at the author’s level caused by

accessing only English-language publications and at the field-level through focussing only

on peer-reviewed articles in a field where policy and non-peer documents are important

contributions to the field. In cases where numbers of records retrieved were deemed to

have a high degree of irrelevance, further refinements were applied, including adding extra

keywords or excluding extraneous topics such as science park and clinical trials.

Publications related to specific forms of UIE deemed not to be relevant to the UQ-CCSG,

included reviews of government-engineered programs such as the Australian

Government’s CRC program, were discarded. The ability to refine the search was based

largely on the degree of functionality provided by the specific search interface. To ensure

specificity, the search results were further refined after being entered into the EndNote

referencing database and into Leximancer, with irrelevant records being deleted. The

quantity of articles in this study favourably aligns with the more than 1500 articles dated

1990 to 2014 identified by the Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa (2015) review, 587 articles dated

50

1966 to 2013 identified by the Feng et. al. (2015) review, the 534 articles dated 1986 to

2011 (only in the social and human sciences) identified in the Teixeira & Mota (2012)

review, and the 435 articles found by the Skute et. al review (2017). The final tally for the

review was 1758 records.

Table 4: Characteristics of the UIE Literature Review

Item Selection Description and Rationale

Timeframe 1986-2016 (31 years)

Two key studies questioning the payoffs and tradeoffs of university-industry engagement were published in 1986 signaling the start of an intensifying debate about socially responsible universities and research – ‘Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex’ (Kenney, 1986) and ‘Academics and Entrepreneurs: developing university-industry relations’(Stankiewicz, 1986).

Language English Author’s mother tongue is English and search functions of the UQ Library concentrates on English-language sources

Type of reference Peer-reviewed journals only

Only peer-reviewed journal articles published in electronic database were selected because they have more validity and are likely to cover the main contribution in rapidly evolving disciplinary fields like UIE (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Markus Perkmann, Neely, & Walsh, 2011)

Databases Searched / Lists Cross-checked

Databases available via UQ Library and Google Scholar. References cross-checked with recent literature reviews.

Databases include ABI Global, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Elsevier (Science Direct), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Ingenta, NetEc, and Social Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Google Scholar. Cross-checked references against recent literature reviews listed in Table 3.

Search Terms

universit* industry* University-industry Industry-university

The search used specific combinations of terms, including: ‘university’ OR ‘academia’ OR ‘higher educational institution’ AND ‘business’ OR ‘industry’ OR ‘firm’ AND one of the following: ‘alliance’, ‘bridge’, ‘collaboration’, ‘cooperation’, ‘exploitation’, ‘innovation’, ‘inter-organizational relationship’, ‘interaction’, ‘link’, ‘partnership’, ‘research and development’, ‘relationship’, ‘technology transfer’, ‘knowledge transfer’, and ‘scheme’.

Excluded papers

Papers were excluded if they were not relevant to the work being conducted by the UQ-CCSG

Papers were excluded if they did not refer to UIE relevant to the operations of the UQ-CCSG, for example, science parks, spinins, spinouts, spinoffs, academic medical centres and clinics, start-ups, Incubators, teaching, training, work experience, philanthropy, prizes, clinical trials, government-led or engineered programs e.g. National Institutes of Health (US) or Cooperative Research Centres (Australia)

To gauge the diversity of scholarly interests in UIE, the 1758 articles were categorised by

the subject fields of the journal they were published in. The Web of Science Scimago

database sorts journals into 27 subject fields, and journals from 25 of the 27 subject fields

had published papers related to UIE.16 The significant subject areas were ‘Business,

Management and Accounting’ and ‘Social Sciences’ and the two exceptions were dentistry

and the health professions. Many other fields have low numbers of articles. 13% of the

16 For more information about the Web of Science Scimago database see http://www.scimagojr.com/help .

http://www.scimagojr.com/help

51

articles appeared in journals not included in the Scimago database. See Appendix 1 for

further details.

2.2 UIE Field Properties

The initial broad sweeping analysis of the literature identified that UIE as a concept does

not belong to any single tradition. The UIE scholarship reveals that it is difficult to consider

UIE as a cohesive discipline because of its multiple definitions, each emphasising specific

goals and functions. It is a field of research where the phenomenon of UIE is becoming

defined and clarified; but there is little coherence in terminology or understanding across

the field. The term ‘UIE’ is full of epistemological pluralism and narrow disciplinary

traditions, creating gaps between theory and practice. This thesis draws on the strength of

these numerous perspectives and approaches to highlight the need for a meta-discourse

or cross-reaching discussion about the nature of research integrity governance in UIE.

The diverse nature, roots and paths that UIEs take means that there are no consistently

used terms across the field. As a result, ‘definitional anarchy’ appears to be central to the

scholarship and the practice, though there have been attempts to characterise and define

the term (Sandmann, 2008). The UIE literature has many overlapping terms, often laden

with meaning. Cuthill (2011) identified 48 keywords relating to community-university

engagement to describe a range of ideas and practices. Some researchers refer to

industry partnerships as a subset of the broader notion of community engagement or

universities’ ‘third mission’, whereas others see industry and community engagement as

being distinctly different functions. The researcher identified over seventy different terms

describing UIE structures and practices from the corpus, as listed in Table 5.

This list is not complete and serves to illustrate that there are multiple framings of UIE. The

focal points shift over time and UIE reflects changes to government policy, university

operations and industry dynamics. There are commonly understood engagement

principles and practices implicit in the ‘research translation’, ‘technology transfer’, ‘spin-out’

and ‘R&D’ in specific industrial and university settings. For example, commercialisation of

vaccines is based on scientific research conducted in universities, and ensures the

science benefits communities through improving public health. Nevertheless, the unifying

concepts of UIE include the acknowledged move away from a university’s one-directional

and transactional interaction with external stakeholders for ‘service’ or ‘outreach’, to

52

participatory and collaborative forms of knowledge development and dissemination. The

proliferation of definitions and meanings of UIE has led to distinct accounts in the literature

of how to deal with the phenomenon and the need to clarify the position of the researcher.

Table 5: List of Terms describing UIE

Term Example References

1. Academic / Faculty Consulting

(Markus Perkmann & Walsh, 2008; Rentocchini, D'Este,

Manjarres-Henriquez, & Grimaldi, 2014)

2. Academic Capitalism / ‘Academic Firm’ (Hackett, 2014; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997)

3. Academic or Scientist Entrepreneur / ship

(M. Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Casati & Genet, 2014; M.

Meyer, 2003)

4.

(Commercial) Academic-Industry Links /

Academic-Industry Relationships (Blumenthal, 1996) (Streiffer, 2006)

5.

Academic-Industry Partnerships and Relationships

(Academic Partners / Academia-industry)

(Campbell et al., 2007; De Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2012; L.

Dooley & Kirk, 2007)

6. Ambidextrous Academic

(Huyghe, Knockaert, Wright, & Piva, 2014; Markides,

2007)

7. (Universities as) Anchor Institutions

(Goddard, Coombes, Kempton, & Vallance, 2014; Harris

& Holley, 2016)

8. Boundary Spanning and Boundary Riding

(Comacchio, Bonesso, & Pizzi, 2012; K.-J. Lee et al.,

2010; Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2004)

9. Business & Academe (Hickey, 2015; Ylijoki, 2005)

10. Business and Community (Huggins, Johnston, & Steffenson, 2008; Yusuf, 2008)

11. Business-Higher Education links (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002)

12.

Collaborative Knowledge Networks / Collaborative

Innovation Networks (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Siegel et al., 2007)

13. Collaborative Research (Derrick & Nickson, 2014; Katz & Martin, 1997)

14. Community-based research

(B. L. Hall, Jackson, Tandon, Fontan, & Lall, 2013;

Tandon, Hall, Lepore, & Singh, 2016)

15. (University) Community Engagement (Driscoll, 2009)

16.

Communities of Practice, Tech Clubs, Learning

Networks, Knowledge Communities, Interest

Groups, Knowledge Centres, Invisible Colleges,

Occupational Communities, Communities of

Practitioners, Communities of Knowing

(Ng & Pemberton, 2013(van der Valk, Chappin, &

Gijsbers, 2011))

17.

University-industry Link / Knowledge Integration

Community (Acworth, 2008)

18. Contract Research (Mirowski & Van Horn, 2005)

19.

Cooperative Research Centres / Centres of

Excellence / Research Institutes

(Boardman et al., 2013; Derrick & Nickson, 2014;

Gulbrandsen, 2011; K. Harman, 2002; Sinnewe,

Charles, & Keast, 2016; Turpin, 1997)

20. Co-production of knowledge (Bozeman et al., 2016; McCabe, Parker, & Cox, 2016)

21. Creative Milieus (Fromhold-Eisebith, 2004)

22.

Entrepreneurial universities, entrepreneurial

science, entrepreneurial scientists (B. Clark, 2001; Etzkowitz, 1998, 2003)

23. Engaged Research / Scholarship (Boyer, 1996(Cuthill, 2011))

24. Engaged University (Watson, 2011)

25.

Engines of industry, business, Small-medium

Enterprises (SMEs) (R. D. Green & Venkatachalam, 2005)

26. Extension (agriculture) (Sandall, Cooksey, & Wright, 2011)

27. Firm university collaboration (Petruzzelli & Rotolo, 2015)

28. Fourth Mission (Kretz & Sá, 2013)

29. Honest Broker (Andereggen et al., 2012; Pielke, 2007)

53

30. Industrial Research Consortium (Markus Perkmann & Schildt, 2015; Randazzese, 1996)

31.

Industry funded research / Industry sponsored

research (Djulbegovic et al., 2000; Ferris, Singer, & Naylor, 2004)

32. Industry science links (G. Harman, 1999)(from policy)

33. Industry partnerships (Narasimharao, 2010)

34.

Industry university coalition / industry university

collaborations (Bauer & Cohen, 1981; Corley, Kim, & Scheufele, 2016)

35. Innovative University (Palfreyman, 2013)

36. Institutional Engagement (Geisler, 1995; Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2011)

37. Interface between Universities and Industry

(Liyanage & Mitchell, 1994; Orecchini, Valitutti, & Vitali,

2012)

38.

Inter-organisational innovation, Inter-

organisational R&D, inter-organisational

collaboration (Dill, 1990; P. Smith, 2012)

39. (Academic) Joint Ventures (W. L. Baldwin & Link, 1998; Caloghirou et al., 2003)

40.

Knowledge Exchange / Knowledge Transfer /

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (Cuthill, O'Shea, Wilson, & Viljoen, 2014 )

41. Mode 3

(E. Carayannis & Campbell, 2006; Schoonmaker &

Carayannis, 2013)

42. Open Innovation, Open Data projects

(Hughes, 2011; Markus Perkmann & Schildt, 2015; M.

Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Tennenhouse, 2004)

43. Outreach Research Programs (Perry & Win, 2013; Schensul, 2010)

44.

Public Research Organisation (PRO) links with

industry (Dutrénit & Arza, 2010; Orozco & Ruiz, 2010)

45. Public Private Partnerships (Koschatzky et al., 2015)

46. Public Engagement in Higher Education (NCCPE, 2010)

47.

Regional Development– Regional / Industry

Clusters

(Arbuthnott, Hannibal, & Nybacka, 2011; Bramwell &

Wolfe, 2008; Youtie & Shapira, 2008)

48. Research Commercialisation

(Aziz, Harris, Zahid, & Aziz, 2013; Grant Harman, 2010;

Hindle & Yencken, 2004)

49. Research Consortium (L. Dooley & Kirk, 2007; J. G. Hall et al., 2006)

50. Research Enterprise (Tight, 2011)

51. Spin-out, Spin-off

(Agarwal, Echambadi, Franco, & Sarkar, 2004; Lockett &

Wright, 2005)

52. Science to Business Marketing (S2B) (Prónay & Buzás, 2015)

53.

Technology Transfer Offices, Science Parks,

Incubators, Accelerators

(B. Martin & Richards, 1995; Mian, 1997; Quintas et al.,

1992)

54. Third Stream / Third Mission (Schuetze, 2010; Watson, 2012)

55. Third-party research (European Union) (Bonaccorsi, Secondi, Setteducati, & Ancaiani, 2014)

56. Translational Research / Translating research

(Lind, Styhre, & Aaboen, 2013; Mailhot, Matt, & Mesny,

2013)

57. University Business Cooperation

(Davey, Baaken, Galan Muros, & Meerman, 2011 ;

Galan-Muros & Plewa, 2016)

58. University Commercial Engagement

(Lam, 2010; Alice Lam, 2011; Owen-Smith, Riccaboni,

Pammolli, & Powell, 2002)

59. University Expertise for Business (D. R. Baldwin, 1986; Nyman, 2015)

60. University industry Alliance

(Cyert & Goodman, 1997; Logar, Ponzurick, Spears, &

France, 2001)

61. University industry association (Kodama, 2008)

62. University-industry interface

(Achatz, Fuchs, Kleinert, & Roßmann, 2010; Etzkowitz,

2012; Foss, 2012)

63. University industry network

(Hayashi, 2003; M. Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Thune,

2007)

64. Patenting & licencing

(A. Agrawal & Henderson, 2002; Bercovitz, Feldman,

Feller, & Burton, 2001)

65. University-industry collaboration

(Bruneel et al., 2010; K.-J. Lee, 2011; Siegel, Waldman,

Atwater, & Link, 2003)

54

UIE is considered as an objective and continuing process by many (Plewa, Korff, Johnson,

et al., 2013), whereas others see it as a series of static time-limited interactions

(Pfotenhauer, Wood, Roos, & Newman, 2016). UIE as an object creates a dichotomy at

either the individual or organisational-level between those scientists or universities who are

engaged, versus those who are not-yet-engaged, or who are seen to be disengaged with

industry (Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005). UIE is a collection of interconnected, cyclic,

evolving and adaptive practices bringing organisations together across a divide. Obtuse

scientific knowledge is explicitly negotiated, but the financial philosophies and moral or

theological underpinnings are invisible, implicit, or do not exist. UIE is difficult to direct, as

there are inexorable evolutionary processes take place with networks, knowledge and

resources, moving at different speeds. In some cases, firms have spun out from university

research, incubators, TTO offices or science parks. In other cases, the firms and

universities ostensibly had separate pasts, but were linked through specific programs and

processes including, but not limited to, the employment of students, insights into the

industry-relevance of curriculum and qualifications, philanthropy, alumni relations,

membership of the university senate and other governing bodies.

2.2.2 Triple Helix perspectives of UIE

The continued scholarly focus on the UIE phenomenon from a variety of perspectives,

shows increasing interest in promoting UIE in innovation, higher education and industry

and regional development circles. In that context, UIE can be construed as a ‘movement’

within science, universities and research in response to an era of increased public

accountability and transparency (political), limitations on government provision of fiscal

resources, innovation underpinning competitive advantage (economic), and the

persistence of complex social, environmental and economic issues (intellectual).

66. University-Industry collaborative research

(Y. S. Lee, 2000; Markus Perkmann, King, & Pavelin,

2011)

67. University-industry cooperation (Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 1996)

68. University-industry coordination

(Garrett-Jones, Turpin, & Diment, 2010; Morandi, 2013;

Nyman, 2015)

69. University-Industry Interaction (Azagra-Caro, 2007; Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998)

70. University-industry links or linkages (Jones & Corral de Zubielqui; Vedovello, 2000)

71. University-industry partnership (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; Z. W. Hall & Scott, 2001)

72. University-industry relations

(Owen-Smith et al., 2002; Markus Perkmann & Walsh,

2009)

73. University-industry research collaboration

(D. R. Baldwin & Green, 1984; Chu, 1983; Fukugawa,

2013)

74. Town and Gown (O'Mara, 2012)

55

Over the past twenty years, various management and performance models used to

describe and evaluate university engagement with industry have shaped policy and

practice. Leading analytical frameworks are the 1) entrepreneurial university (B. Clark,

2001; B. R. Clark, 1998; Rothaermel et al., 2007) with strong university leadership

stimulating the regional economy and attracting a diversified funding base; 2) universities’

third mission (Laredo, 2007; Pinheiro, Langa, & Pausits, 2015); 3), the triple helix model of

university, business and government with three semi-autonomous institutional logics

interacting with the support of specialist intermediaries (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000)17;

4) relationship management to attempt to integrate the logics of science and business

(Galán-Muros, van der Sijde, Groenewegen, & Baaken, 2015; Plewa, Korff, Johnson, et

al., 2013; Plewa, Quester, & Baaken, 2005); 5) the institutionally oriented ecosystem

model of university-business cooperation (Davey et al., 2011 ); and 6) the implementation

of performance metrics, including ranking, patents and spin outs (Hazelkorn, 2011; Piva &

Rossi-Lamastra, 2013).

However, these models have not reflected the explicit shift from university research

evaluation and management systems focussed on academic excellence, to a framework

that also considers community engagement and ‘societal impact’. Until now, the potentially

significant tensions in the relationship between UIRCs and external stakeholders have

been marginalised or overlooked in UIE scholarship. How UIRCs engage with external

parties is a small and potentially insignificant function of the partnership when the research

is aligned with university and business objectives i.e. the development of new technologies

and products or business improvements. However, how UIRCs engage with external

stakeholders can become of interest in mission-focussed research programs of significant

public interest, for example, the examination of large infrastructure projects or indigenous

health. In such cases, how the university-industry partnership engages with its

stakeholders, local communities and society more broadly, can become a significant

consideration within the partnership. Universities and firms traditionally define and engage

with their external stakeholders in disparate ways (Benneworth, de Boer, & Jongbloed,

2015; Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010; K. Miller, McAdam, & McAdam, 2014). Thus, their

17 More recently the conceptualisation of the Triple Helix, or three-bodied problem, has been extended to the Quadruple and Quintuple Helixes. These models involve the public and environmental logics in conceptualisations about innovation.

56

partnerships need to fulfil the stakeholder expectations of the partnership, as well as of the

‘parent’ universities and companies.

UIE is being promoted and taken up by a variety of stakeholders, each with differing

philosophies and accompanying discourses as to the meaning and functions of universities

and the range of their acceptable interactions with businesses. Advocates of UIE argue

that the links are useful to transfer academic research to society (De Fuentes & Dutrénit,

2012; Roessner, Bond, Okubo, & Planting, 2013). Other proponents argue that academics

working independently of industry produce more socially relevant research (Gulbrandsen &

Smeby, 2005; Markus Perkmann et al., 2011). Opponents of UIE come from a variety of

backgrounds and worry about how linkages change the research agenda, diminish basic

science and stifle dissemination of discoveries (Y. S. Lee, 1996; Tartari & Breschi, 2012).

Some UIE scholars take a more intermediary position, seeking a more nuanced

understanding of the boundaries between the organisational logic inherent in universities

and businesses (Gertner, Roberts, & Charles, 2011; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). This

study consciously seeks to investigate the organisational values, structures and practices

around research integrity –identified weaknesses in UIE (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015).

The viewpoints of the three key groups of actors – university, industry and government -

emphases different elements of UIE. Some scholars see UIE as an entity which creates a

dichotomy at either the individual or organisational-level between those scientists or

universities that are engaged versus those who are not-yet-engaged, or who are seen to

be disengaged with industry (Abramo, D'Angelo, Di Costa, & Solazzi, 2009; Bruneel et al.,

2010).Other scholars conceptualise UIE as an enabling organisational process that aligns

the university strategies for the ‘third mission’ (Loi & Di Guardo, 2015; Pinheiro et al.,

2015), community outreach (Doberneck, Glass, & Schweitzer, 2010), engagement and

science communication (Gunn, 2012; Watermeyer, 2012); research commercialisation

(Vanderford, Weiss, & Weiss, 2013), research translation and impact (Glasgow, 2013);

open innovation (Hughes, 2011); or for promoting sustainability and contributions to the

United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) (Orecchini et al., 2012).

Other ways of conceptualising UIE are to position partnerships within the knowledge

economy including as boundary spanners and boundary organisations (Tushman, 1997);

57

as part of a community, including engaged scholarship (Van de Van, 2007); as a form of

institution that merges with others like hybrid organisations (Gulbrandsen, 2011); as ‘being’

within society more broadly, which includes engaged universities (Watson et.al, 2011) and,

more commercially, as entrepreneurial universities (Clark, 2001). The UQ-CCSG could

thus be interpreted to be part of the university’s Energy Initiative’s research agenda18, an

outreach to the local Queensland communities impacted by CSG development, or as an

institutionalised pathway for providing government agencies with policy advice (Cherney,

Head, Boreham, Povey, & Ferguson, 2012, 2013). The case study presented in Chapter

Four shows that UQ-CCSG assumes all the above-mentioned positions for different

audiences.

From the firms’ perspectives, UIE enables R&D, talent acquisition and CSR objectives

(Dowling, 2015; Pertuze, 2013 ; Pertuzé, Calder, Greitzer, & Lucas, 2010; Ranga et al.,

2013; Ulrichsen & O'Sullivan, 2015). As noted throughout this study, the firms participating

in the UQ-CCSG make public statements positioning their university relationships in

disparate ways. For example, Arrow promoted UQ-CCSG as an education and research

partner on their website whereas the BG Group promoted the University of Queensland as

assisting the company with its social responsibility activities (QGC, 2015).

From the government and public policy perspectives, UIE enables regional economic

development through university ‘anchor institutions’ (Capogna, 2012; Laredo, 2007;

O'Mara, 2012). UIE is conceived of as a mechanism to share expertise, stimulate

innovation, and to mobilise and motivate cultural change and positive practices. While UIE

scholars generally do not attend to the notion of student, non-academic staff, community

and public stakeholders in UIE at a local or global level, there are exceptions. Examples of

these include, but are not limited to, fields intrinsically focussed on communities and

society, e.g. public health and human geography or on the purposeful research practices

of ‘engaged scholars’ (Cuthill, 2010; Van de Ven, 2007); and on ‘public engagement’

(Watermeyer & Lewis, 2017).

18 For more information about UQ’s Energy Initiative see https://energy.uq.edu.au/

https://energy.uq.edu.au/

58

None of the numerous definitions of UIE that abound in the literature is given preference in

this study. However, a consistent message from the literature and practice can be

concluded: that is, that academics who participate in or analyse UIE programs wish to

steer universities toward making social impacts rather than away from, and these impacts

could be civic, democratic, economic, or a combination of areas. For the purposes of this

thesis, UIE takes a meta-view of UIE encompassing both practices and principles in the

space of research collaboration, as distinct from education and student mobility

arrangements, e.g. exchanges, placements, work experience and study abroad programs.

2.2.3 Unit of Analysis – the Nano-level

Altman and Ebersberger (2013) suggest that UIE should be analysed across three levels –

the systemic (macro), the organisational (meso) and the individual (micro). Likewise, an

initial scan of the literature identified that there are multiple levels of interpretation of UIE

that are generally employed, but further analysis of the literature identified five inter-related

levels, rather than three. The levels are depicted in Figure 2 and refer to analysis of UIE

being conducted by scholars at the level of global (macro); national (meso);

institutional/organisational which is equivalent to the meso-level in the Altman and

Ebersberger model (micro); research centre, program or group (nano), and researcher /

scientist / administrator (pico). Nano-level analysis attends to the characteristics and

practices of units or sections within universities and firms that have the explicit mission of

promoting, regulating or managing UIE. This level of analysis draws the analysis away

from the more easily accessible quantitative data about the structural influencing factors

(e.g. company size and revenue, age of university, distance between university and

company) and outcomes in the public sphere (e.g. patents, licences and publications).

Focusing on this level of analysis allows for examination of how national and institutional

codes of research integrity are interpreted, debated and enacted. Rather than investigating

research integrity from the perspective of compliance, this thesis looks at how activities

demonstrate the integrity of UIRC research to external interests.

The nano-level organisational focus of this study also reflects the concerns of

contemporary scholars investigating behavioural ethics, misconduct and research

management (Freckelton, 2016; G. C. Gray, 2013; Nguyen & Meek, 2015). These authors

agree that research integrity scholarship should expand from identifying and rectifying

59

individual behaviours (moral development, philosophical and rational choices) and political

or policy initiatives to explore how organisational, situational and social forces influence

research integrity

Figure 2: University-Industry Engagement Scales of Analysis

The particular benefit associated with organisational studies of research integrity is that the

networks of institutional actors, the local historical context and narratives that shape UIE

are illuminated (Lehtimaki & Peltonen, 2013). This study responds to this by characterising

the nature of research integrity governance occurring in the UQ-CCSG. Research integrity

governance is a located and temporal process where UIRC members link the formal public

policy and university rules to concrete actions. It must be emphasised that the nano-level

of analysis does not involve a disregard of individual or systemic explanations of research

integrity, e.g., moral character or changing societal beliefs. Rather, this thesis takes into

consideration the ways in which organising UIE affects the integrity of university research.

60

2.2.4 Major contributions to UIE Scholarship

The major contributions to UIE scholarship have been made from specific locations – U.S.

(a dominant global economy), Japan (as an example of an economic miracle between

World War II and post-Cold War), Germany (industrial powerhouse with traditional ties

between industry and research organisations) and the United Kingdom, initially. More

recently, researchers have focussed on different national and multinational models

including the European Union, Brazil and the Republic of Korea, where strong national

innovation frameworks support UIE. Contributions to UIE scholarship about the Australian

context have been limited (c.f. Dodgson, 1989; Dodgson, Hughes, Foster, & Metcalfe,

2011; Dodgson & Staggs, 2012; Garrett-Jones et al., 2010; G. Harman, 1999; Grant

Harman, 2001; G. Harman, 2002; Grant Harman, 2010; Grant Harman & Ollif, 2004; K.

Harman, 2002; Plewa, Davey, Meerman, & Galan-Muros, 2017; Plewa, Davey, Meerman,

& Galan Muros, 2017; Plewa, Korff, Johnson, et al., 2013; Turpin, 1996; Turpin et al.,

1999; Turpin, Garrett-Jones, & Woolley, 2011).

In addition to the broad expansion in the number of articles, other scholarly activities have

drawn together UIE scholars (Ware & Mabe, 2012); for example, the special edition of the

SRA Journal of the Society of Research Administrators in 1985, the special edition of the

International Journal of Technology Management in 1998 on university science parks, and

the EU-funded Fourth Framework Targeted Socio-Economic Programme on the role of

universities in Knowledge, Universities and Regional Development (UNIREG) in 2003.

These publications reveal several new journals and centres of excellence, demonstrating

that UIE is fulfilling the definition of scholarly field, and is not just a pragmatic public policy

and university management goal. Newer journals, with a lower ranking and with a specific

focus on UIE, include Industry and Higher Education, the European Journal of Higher

Education and Triple Helix – See Table 6. This growth in scholarship illustrates an

increasingly frequent phenomenon and a growing field of academic interest, reflecting

government and university management interest in better understanding and increasing

UIE.

While there has been a surge in UIE scholarship, there has not been commensurate

growth in scholarly interest in the integrity of industry-funded research. Figure 3 depicts the

61

low but continuous consideration of research integrity over the three decades from 1986-

2016.

Figure 3: Growth in UIE Literature

Researchers recently examining the technology transfer literature identified a similar list of

main journals, i.e., the Journal of Technology Transfer, Research Policy, Science and

Public Policy, R&D Management and Technovation (Cunningham et al., 2017). The key

differences between the Cunningham review and this one, is that this review incorporates

the substantial contributions to UIE literature by scholars in the fields of: research

evaluation, mainstream higher education, management, public policy and economics. A

recent bibliometric review of industry-university collaboration by Skute et al. (2017)

substantiated that the journals listed in Table 6 are the main journals, but also identified

Management Science as one of the top five journals for UIE. This suggests that the broad

research agenda of UIE is proactively being pursued in a small number of journals –

Research Policy and Journal of Technology Transfer and that some discipline- or industry-

or policy-specific programs of UIE research are also being pursued.

0

50

100

150

200

250

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

Number of Articles Average

Number Research Integrity Articles Expon. (Number of Articles)

62

Table 6: Prominent UIE Journals

Rank

Number of

Articles Name of Journal

1 178 Research Policy

2 112 Journal of Technology Transfer

3 62 Science and Public Policy

4 48 Technovation

5 43 Scientometrics

6 35 Higher Education

7 28 R & D Management

8 27 Industry and Higher Education

9 24 Industry and Innovation

10 23 Technological Forecasting and Social Change

11-13 21

International Journal of Technology Management; Journal of the Knowledge

Economy; Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

14 20 European Planning Studies

15 16 Minerva

16-17 14 Research Evaluation; Research-Technology Management

18-19 13 Economics of Innovation and New Technology; Regional Studies

20-23 12

European Journal of Innovation Management; International Journal of

Technology Management and Sustainable Development; Journal of Higher

Education Policy and Management; Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

24-29 11

Cambridge Journal of Economics; Industrial and Corporate Change; Innovation:

Management, Policy and Practice; Papers in Regional Science; Science,

Technology and Human Values; Studies in Higher Education

30-36 10

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association; Journal of Research

Administration; Journal of Technology Management and Innovation;

Prometheus; Science and Engineering Ethics; Social Studies of Science; SRA-

Journal of the Society of Research Administrators

37-41 9

Accountability in Research; Journal of Higher Education; Journal of Higher

Education Outreach and Engagement; Science Technology and Society; Small

Business Economics

42-43 8 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management; Journal of Informetrics

2.2.5 Shifting focus of UIE Scholarship

In preparation for this study, a ‘stocktake’ of how the UIE field of enquiry has undergone

changes in methodology, theory and orientation was undertaken. As noted in Table 3,

periodic reviews of the UIE literature have integrated extant knowledge to provide insights

into UIRC governance. While CAQDAS has not previously been used in UIE research,

studies from other fields demonstrate how deep insights are gained through content

analysis of existing literature (Angus, Rintel, & Wiles, 2013). Content analysis of the

corpus using Leximancer provided the researcher with insights about how the UIE and UIE

scholarship has evolved over 31 years. The researcher moved within and between the 5-

year blocks of articles, looking for patterns in the frequency of words, concepts and

themes, and drilling down into the texts of articles. The processes highlighted seven trends

63

which point to the changing nature of UIE and the growing significance of governing

partnerships to ensure the research integrity.

First, the corpus shows a clear tendency towards appreciative empirical studies

concentrated around prestigious universities and high-tech and medical industries in the

industrialised world. UIE is mostly assumed to be beneficial. Scholars from the health

sciences, IT and engineering research disciplines draw upon their long legacy of close ties

with professional bodies and industry and it is their experiences which populate the UIE

scholarship and policy discussions. These academics, especially those located at high

ranking research universities in Europe or the US, are materially better positioned to

produce knowledge about UIE than many of their colleagues in other disciplines or

countries. This predisposes scholarly and policy discussions to focus on the university,

rather than the industry experience and to promote the examples of successful

collaborations for producing pharmaceuticals and technologies (Gilsing, Bekkers, Freitas,

& van der Steen, 2011; Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998). The asymmetrical

understanding of UIE masks the challenges faced by partnerships at the boundary of

particular countries, disciplines and industries, for example, Australian O&G research

partnerships investigating CSG. The gap in knowledge potentially results in national and

institutional research governance arrangements not considering the research integrity

challenges specific to less common disciplinary and industry conditions.

The second trend identified within the journal articles, is that UIE scholarship continues to

be dominated by technologies, rather than process, policy or service innovations. Public

concerns about research integrity tend not to focus the development of technologies for

commercial outcomes hidden by confidentiality arrangements. Rather details of UIE

governance arrangements are revealed when there is misconduct or research is the basis

of public policymaking, community engagement, legal decision-making or shaping society

(Nicholas H. Steneck, Mayer, & Anderson, 2015). UIE scholarship primary units of analysis

have tended to move from conducting R&D in the 1980s (e.g.D. R. Baldwin, 1986; Gander,

1987) to gaining a broader understanding of knowledge and technology transfer in the

2000s. Measuring licencing, patenting and other forms of research output data became a

more popular methodology for UIE research from the mid-2000s highlighting the how

some UIE relationships were becoming more complex in terms of activity, resources and

stakeholders (See Appendices 6 & 7). Scholars moved from assessing the success of

64

partnerships to investigating the role of intermediaries, government policy settings and

university policies on UIE (Brown, 2016; Guerrero, Cunningham, & Urbano, 2015). Thus,

the focus of UIE scholarship is moving from the nature of R&D projects to a broader and

integrated conceptualisation of how UIE contributes to innovation, economic development

and social progress. Resulting in viewpoints that consider research integrity as being

negotiated within a changing social environment, rather than compliance with stipulated

research integrity frameworks.

The corpus of UIE articles reveals a third trend. The rapid global growth and change in

higher education are reflected in the UIE literature, including the increasing size and

influence of the university sector and global research enterprise. This growth is

accompanied by an interest in how to better govern university, particularly research. In the

early decades, 1980s and 1990s, university focus was on the academe and science

(Appendices 3 & 4), whereas the role of the university within various contexts – national,

regional economy and industry, became a more frequent unit of analysis from 2005. Case

studies of various UIE arrangements reveal how the global research enterprise is

expanding along differing paths and there is a growing interdependency of industry,

universities, government and the public (as reflected in the Quadruple Helix literature)19.

The scholarship shows that the growth in volume and diversity of university-industry

research partnerships is changing the nature of university work. Traditionally, research

integrity was the responsibility of scientists. However, the growth of the global research

enterprise and the increasing interdependency of university researchers with external

stakeholders suggests, that the responsibility for research integrity is increasingly shared

between universities and their external partners.

The fourth trend identified in the UIE literature, is that initially UIE was constructed as a

‘choice’ for researchers and universities to consider, but more recently a myriad of external

drivers of UIE are obliging researchers to collaborate with industry and external partners.

The formalisation or institutionalisation of arrangements, for example through the

19 The Triple Helix model on innovation (government-industry-university collaboration) has been extended to include the Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix models. These models place increasing emphasis on the role of the community and the media within innovation systems. Carayannis and Campbell (2009) developed a Quadruple Helix model, the fourth helix comprising the media-based and culture-based public and the civil society. With colleague Barth, they then proposed the Quintuple Helix model, bringing in the fifth helix of the natural environments of society, and proposing the Quintuple Helix model is adequate for creating and supporting mid- and long-term sustainable development of society (Carayannis, Barth & Campbell, 2012).

65

establishment of CRCs, can leverage, shape, disrupt or suspend the multiple formal and

informal linkages already in existence; so it is essential to have appropriate resources and

decision-making mechanisms in place (Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2011). Historically, some

countries established single or systems of higher education institutions with the explicit

objective of collaborating with industry for teaching and research, for example, the Land

Grant Universities in the US, the Fachhochschulen or Universities of Applied Sciences in

Germany, Switzerland and Austria or the Australian Technology Network of Universities in

Australia.20 While some universities and industries have always had a close association,

the contemporary university as a place of knowledge and technology transfer, spin outs,

spin offs, start-ups, incubators, patents and other forms of ‘research commercialisation’

has more recent origins.

Some universities, particularly in the nations with strong manufacturing industries like the

US, nurtured intense entrepreneurial zeal (B. Clark, 2001). More recently, national

governments have been promoting the uptake of UIE more broadly. It is now economic

orthodoxy to link national economic growth and the expansion of the ‘knowledge economy’

with high levels of collaboration between universities and industry stimulated through

innovation, science and higher education policies and that (Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development, 2013). There is a growing expectation that universities need

to become more entrepreneurial and produce more entrepreneurial staff and students

(Garrett-Jones & Turpin, 2012). UIE is not necessarily defined as a ‘choice’ for individual

researchers, but rather a goal for research organisations. This suggests that research

organisations have further reasons establish organisational frameworks to promote UIE

and have increased vested interests in ensuring the quality, cost-efficiency and ultimately,

the integrity of its research.

The collection of journal articles disclosed a fifth trend, that is the role of government in

UIE has expanded and moved away from direct engagement. Governments are moving

from being a direct funder of UIE to assuming an enabling role, regulating industries to

promote innovation, supporting community engagement strategies and supporting non-

20 The Australian Technology Network (ATN) is a coalition of five Australian universities that share a common focus on the industrial application of learning and research. These universities share a common background in the way they distinguished themselves as technical colleges before becoming accredited universities. The member universities of this network are: Curtin University of Technology, University of South Australia, RMIT University, University of Technology Sydney. The Queensland University of Technology withdrew from the ATN in late 2018. For more information about the network see http://www.atn.edu.au/

http://www.atn.edu.au/

66

traditional UIE partnerships, e.g. with low-technology SMEs. Initially government was

considered in terms of providing monies for scientific research and R&D to stimulate

economic progress (Beveridge, 1991; Macdonald, 1986) (See Appendix 3). Funding

contracts included clauses to ensure compliance with the evolving national and

institutional research integrity standards. More recently, scholars are viewing the role of

government in stimulating UIE is viewed in a broader context, i.e., as a user of scientific

research to regulate industries (J. Hall, Matos, Bachor, & Downey, 2014); as a supporter of

universities engaging with SMEs (Zubielqui et al., 2015); as a strong contributor to regional

economic development (Calzonetti, Miller, & Reid, 2012; Kitagawa, 2012); as a stimulator

and legitimiser of new industries, e.g. nanotechnology (Russell, 2013);as a supporter of

international relations objectives (Heitor, 2015; Sharif & Tang, 2014); and as safeguarding

the public interest (See Appendices 6 & 7). The focus on driving economic efficiency,

growth and standardisation, focusses government efforts measuring and evaluating the

effectiveness of policy interventions and UIE impacts (Bornmann, 2013; M. Perkmann et

al., 2015). The role of government in ensuring research integrity moves from ensuring

compliance to research integrity codes in funding contracts to participating in shared

governance arrangements with university and industry partners.

The sixth trend to emerge from the UIE scholarship, is that there has been a ‘social turn’ in

UIE research since the 2000s leading to closer examination of the social and cultural

factors shaping the university-industry interface. Multiple perspectives together, reveal that

there are benefits to be gained – at the project, national, field of research and systemic

levels - from involving societal stakeholders, especially research end-users, in UIE

innovation processes. For example, the notions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and

responsiveness in the production of science and knowledge are becoming the focus of a

growing research and policy agenda in Europe – Responsible Research and Innovation

(RRI) (Răceanu, 2016; Stilgoe et al., 2013). At the same time, various national higher

education regulators, funders and universities themselves are requiring research groups to

identify and evaluate the ways in which their research impacts society, e.g., United

Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), the Australian Research Council’s

Research Impacts and Star Metrics used by some US universities (Australian Research

Council, 2016; Grant & Booth, 2009; Lane, 2010). Additionally, there are scholars

addressing the inequities potentially involved in collaborations between Transnational

67

Education (TNE) entities, world class universities (Altbach & Balán, 2007) and universities

in developing countries (Pfotenhauer et al., 2016).

The seventh trend revealed in the corpus of UIE journal articles, is the idea that

researchers and universities are increasingly expected by politicians and other

stakeholders to integrate public interests, national interests and significant societal

responsibilities into university operations and research agendas (Watermeyer, 2011).

Governments want universities to demonstrate accountability and transparency in return

for substantial public funding. Universities are increasingly expected to demonstrate their

value and social impact e.g. by aligning their operations and reporting with the Federal

government’s Research Impact Principles and Framework (Upton, Vallance, & Goddard,

2014). Citizens as users of technologies and medicines want to trust university-industry

research partnerships but may be wary of the implications of industry-funding (Casswell,

2013; F. A. Miller et al., 2015). The isolated ‘ivory tower’ is being dismantled enabling

universities to have a flourishing array of mechanisms for engaging with external partners

(Lightowler & Knight, 2013).

Together the seven broad trends evident in the UIE literature, point to why the governance

of research integrity in university-industry research partnerships is coming to the attention

of university leaders and public policy makers. The increased volume and diversity of UIE

arrangements across multiple industries, universities and fields of research, has resulted in

new organisational forms of partnership. The amplified scrutiny of university-industry

partnerships by regulatory agencies, funding bodies and the public has resulted in

increased interest in the conditions under which knowledge is developed. UIE scholarship

is moving beyond seeking explanations for research integrity and misconduct in individual

researcher behaviours and motivations. Instead, there is interest in understanding and

mitigating the organisational and systemic forces that protect and challenge the integrity of

industry-funded research. In this context, the governance of university-industry research

partnerships is fundamental to research integrity.

2.2.6 Five Research Streams contributing to UIE Scholarship

Analysis of the corpus highlighted five independent streams of research that contribute to

an increasingly coherent body of knowledge about UIE. Each of the streams has its own

68

embedded ontological, epistemological and ideological ideations of UIE. Much UIE

scholarship does not explicitly examine the integrity of the research (as noted in Figure 3),

instead assuming that integrity of the research is assured. The analysis of these works

shows that none of the UIE research streams adequately captures the durable and

complex nature of research integrity governance. Instead, it points to a dissonance in

understanding what should constitute research integrity governance and what the diversity

of work undertaken by UIE partnerships contributes to scientific debates.

Through focussing on the variations within the corpus, i.e., approaches, units of analysis,

research interests and framing of results, different notions of research integrity are

revealed. The process of looking at research streams or agendas begins to expose

characteristics of research integrity governance and some of the normative ethics that

shape researcher and research stakeholder opinions about the integrity of industry-funded

research. While there may be value to stabilizing one definition of research integrity

governance, the multitude of definitions and approaches sheds light on where the field of

UIE may be going. While it is beyond the scope of this study to define the differences, it is

crucial to acknowledge there is a range of beliefs held about what constitutes research

integrity governance, where the responsibility for research integrity sits within university-

industry research partnerships, and how to demonstrate and evaluate research integrity.

Table 7: Five research streams contributing to UIE scholarship

Disciplinary Traditions

Examples of conceptual frameworks from the literature

Common units of analysis / scale

Duration of UIE

Examples of proponents

1 UIE producing innovation

National Innovation Systems

Nation - Policy Continuing

Mowery & Sampat (2005); Nelson (1993)

Triple Helix and N+ Helix

Within nations, regions or industries Continuing

Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000); Miller, McAdam, & McAdam (2016)

2

UIE as a higher education function

Third Mission University Continuing

Watson (2012); Schuetze (2010)

Engaged Scholarship Research Group

Continuing / Project

Cuthill (2010); Sandmann (2008)

Entrepreneurial University University Continuing

Slaughter et al (2002); D’Este & Fontana (2007)

3

UIE in context of science and society

Mode 2

Science, university, laboratory, researcher Continuing

Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000);

69

Fujigaki & Leydesdorff (2000)

Post-normal science

Science, university, laboratory, researcher Continuing

Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993) Jahn, Bergmann & Keil (2012)

4 UIE and Economics

Regional development; Knowledge economy

Economies and organisations

Continuing and project

(Bas & Kunc, 2012); Breznitz & Feldman (2012)

5 Organisation of UIE

Boundary Spanners / Brokerage

Organisations and strategies i.e. TTOs, community engagement

Continuing or project

Siegel et.al. (2003); Weerts & Sandmann (2010)

Hybrid organisations, practices, spaces

Organisations and strategies

Continuing or project

Tuunainen, (2005); Jain, George & Maltarich (2009)

Relationship Management Partnership Project Plewa (2013)

Attract resources Organisation Continuing / Project Powers (2003)

Identity Management Organisation Project Jain & George (2007)

The five research streams constitute an analytical construct that points to some patterns in

the collected papers while not reflecting the full complexity of research integrity

governance. It is not that the differences between the streams are clearly delineated.

Rather, it is assumed that they possibly intersect or overlap even when they seem

contradictory. This section briefly discusses the contribution of each approach to our

understanding of research integrity governance and where it includes discussion of

references, the entire paper is referenced. It is the individual texts, rather than the

accumulative patterns found, that are important. The findings are robust in describing a

recurring pattern.

First, the national innovation systems literature highlights the differences between national

education systems and economies, and the international mobility and migration of

researchers and students. It encompasses the significant role of government in

incentivising innovation in nascent industries and UIE as well as in regulating new

industries, and it highlights the economic drivers of UIE. Knowledge is created, modified

and diffused through a growing and increasingly interdependent network of organisations

across the public and private sectors. This points to the complex array of stakeholders that

UIE partnerships engage, and the national interest in ensuring integrity of the national

research ecosystem and the various organisations contributing to it. The literature also

suggests that national-level research integrity regulations should be sufficiently broad to

include oversight of research organisations and partnerships from the public, private and

70

not-for-profit sectors, as well as international collaborations (Capogna, 2012; K. Miller,

McAdam, Moffett, Alexander, & Puthusserry, 2016) Commonly, scholars contributing to the

innovation systems literature are seeking to enable innovation through better

understanding of the relationships between actors within innovation ecosystems, and the

impact of policy and regulatory settings (D. C. Mowery, 2011; Nyman, 2015). Scholars

point to the significance of public perceptions of research integrity for maintaining financial

and political support for research and innovation (Anderson, Adam, & Snyder, 2016;

Nicholas H. Steneck et al., 2015)

The second research stream emerges from higher education scholars, who are

responding to the increasing attention given to issues of research integrity by policymakers

and the need to optimise the governance mechanisms shared between higher education

regulatory agencies, publishers, universities and other stakeholders (Schoenherr &

Williams-Jones, 2011). How these actors work together to shape the behaviour of

researchers and students is of interest to the actors across the higher education sector

and scholars. Research with industry funding can alter the quality of knowledge created,

organisational reputations and research ethics (Betts & Santoro, 2011). Commonly

scholars focussed on the ‘microethics’ of research integrity highlight the importance of

higher education sector decision-makers and policy-makers’ formal and informal flows of

knowledge, networks and engagement with external research partners (Amara, Landry, &

Halilem, 2013). The literature highlights the changing policy goals of universities in UIE:

from developing human capital and providing facilities for trials and testing, to profit-

making and facilitating innovation (Kelli, Mets, Jonsson, Pisuke, & Adamsoo, 2013; Mets,

Kelli, Mets, & Tiimann, 2016). The literature reveals that research integrity governance

occurs in formal and informal contexts and is shaped by the array of relationships held by

the individuals and organisations involved, as well as the higher education policy context

of the day.

The science, technology and society scholarship – the third stream of research -

characterises the broad social trends which contribute to the increasing institutionalisation

of UIE and the rising significance of research integrity. For example, new ways of

producing knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994) and the increasing interdependence of

science and society are reflected in the emergence of UIRCs as an increasingly common

form of UIE. The decreasing public trust in science (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2017) is revealed

71

in the UQ-CCSG’s multiple challenges to the integrity of its research. Research

organisations have specific governance challenges resulting from operating in an

increasingly integrated, competitive and globalising world. The cumulative impact of many

changes at the science-society interface are relevant to this study, including but not limited

to the nature of academic work, governance and organisational structures of universities

and the role of government within higher education. These systemic changes are infusing

the practices, relations and identities of UIRCs and shaping how the integrity of industry-

funded research can be assured.

Economics is the fourth important stream of research contributing to the corpus of UIE

scholarship. In broad terms, economists are seeking to quantify the resources required to

establish university-industry research collaborations, the economic benefits to UIE

participants (e.g. the assignment of rights and ownership and the comparative advantage

associated with those rights) and the spillovers of UIE activity to regional and national

economies. Thus, universities are positioned as vital agents of economic development and

UIE as a mechanism to benefit product and service innovation. In the economic literature

pertaining to UIE, research integrity is usually assumed rather than identified as a

determinant. However, beyond the UIE literature, there is a rapidly expanding research

agenda seeking to quantify the costs and benefits associated with research practices and

governance , e.g. the costs and benefits associated with open access publishing (Simeth

& Organization, 2013), reproducibility (Freedman, Cockburn, & Simcoe, 2015), identifying

research misconduct and correcting the scientific record (Stern, Casadevall, Steen, &

Fang, 2014). UIE scholarship highlights how the division of labour, the acquisition and

allocation of resources and contemporary fiscal policy settings all shape how UIE is

conducted, and with that, the integrity of industry-funded research.

UIE is frequently positioned as an organisational management and governance challenge

for research partnerships operating across the scientific and commercial domains, and is

the fifth stream of research. A notable research agenda is examining how UIE operates

across institutional logics and the importance of integrating goals, values and practices.

For over twenty-five years, scholars have highlighted the importance of active university

leadership in formulating organisational structures and procedures for assessing whether

potential UIE partnerships align with university missions (Boardman et al., 2013; Bozeman

et al., 2016; Fairweather, 1991). Unlike industry, which typically has the dominant goal of

72

profitability, universities must simultaneously balance their resources between fulfilling the

partner’s goals and seeking truth; creating and disseminating new knowledge; attending to

social justice; and promoting economic and social progress and sustainability through

education, research and third mission (outreach, service, community engagement).

Scholars have considered how to select the right partner and align university and industry

partner goals to gain university and industry leadership agreement for collaboration

(Mindruta, 2013; Plewa, Korff, Baaken, et al., 2013; Plewa, Korff, Johnson, et al., 2013).

However, how the leaders of the UIRC trade off the multiple priorities and alignment with

university missions, i.e. teaching, academic freedom, third mission and sustainability, is a

challenge for UIRC managers but has not been considered in the literature.

A recurrent theme across the UIE scholarship is that research is crucial to human progress

and that sometimes research has substantive, global and intergenerational impacts.

Therefore, how research is conducted and governed is significant. In this work, research is

defined by the Franscati Manual as undertaking creative and systematic work to increase

the stock of knowledge (OECD, 2015). However, the scholarship shows that UIE is

resource-intensive and that much work conducted within partnerships is not directly related

to the process of conducting research. Instead, when UIE is motivated and evaluated by

multiple nonaligned commercial, public-policy and scientific goals, researchers and

administrators work to sustain the partnership, acquire enough resources and engage with

current and future stakeholders in the research. In most UIE scholarship, research integrity

is usually presumed, or considered in terms of research misconduct, which is specifically

connected to the type of funding, e.g., private vs public or research partnership goals, e.g.,

commercial vs scientific. Topics such as conflict of interest policies (e.g. (e.g. Canary,

Hansen, Rinehart, May, & Barlow, 2015) or ghost-writing and ghost-management (e.g.

(Cosgrove, Vannoy, Mintzes, & Shaughnessy, 2016)) are discussed in detail rather than in

the context of research integrity governance.

Additionally, there is a narrow but persistent stream of research cutting across the higher

education and science and society literature showing that the risks associated with some

UIE arrangements outweigh the private and societal benefits. For these scholars, research

integrity governance is linked to assessing the social costs and benefits associated with

research (Bridgman, 2009; G. Gray & Carroll, 2018; Resnik & Elliott, 2016; Shore &

McLauchlan, 2012) While university funding arrangements with industry partners are seen

73

to contribute to lack of research integrity, these studies reveal how the commercial

objectives of the research partnerships overshadow scientific norms and goals. The

studies highlight concerns about how the research partnerships are governed.

The five research streams show that research integrity is specific to the context and that

different elements rise to prominence in varying situations e.g. research impact on local

communities is relevant in times of public health controversies. Research integrity is

inextricably linked to laws, organisational policies, professional norms and personal

values, so it changes along with participants and operating contexts. Thus, research

integrity is not neutral but always socially and politically constructed and provides insights

into how innovation occurs, the role of universities in society, the changes to how science

and knowledge are produced, the economic significance of research partnerships and how

universities operate.

2.3 Depiction of the O&G Industry in the UIE Literature

Within the corpus of UIE scholarship reviewed for this study, examination of relationships

between the O&G industry and universities coalesces around several notions. First,

scholars show that the locations of UIE research activities have patterns and are not ad

hoc (Brewer, 2013; Buzard & Carlino, 2008; Narula & Santangelo, 2012). The

unconventional gas industry has a variety of key locations that may relate to the location of

industry-funded research, for example: location of company headquarters including NOCs;

sites for gas production, liquification, transportation and distribution; gas market hubs

(Singapore, London, Japan, Henry Hub)21, stock markets (London, Toronto, New York,

Australia, Oslo)22 and traditional innovation hubs. There are identified ‘oil and gas

innovation hubs’ e.g. Aberdeen, Stavanger, Texas and Alberta have emerged from long-

term onshore and offshore oil developments (Butler & Gibson, 2013; Westnes,

Hatakenaka, Gjelsvik, & Lester, 2009). Table 2 shows the location of unconventional

UIRCs at strategic locations around the world, suggesting that many UIRCs related to

21 The Henry Hub is a distribution hub on the natural gas pipeline system that converges in Louisiana, USA. Due to its importance, it lends its name to the pricing point for natural gas futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the over-the-counter swaps traded on Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). For more information about the gas market hubs, see http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/dttl-er-oilgasrealitycheck2013-08072013.pdf 22 For more information about key bourses/stock exchanges for oil and gas companies, see http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/energy-utilities-mining/publications/pdf/pwc-executing-a-successful-listing-oil-and-gas.pdf

http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/dttl-er-oilgasrealitycheck2013-08072013.pdf

http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/energy-utilities-mining/publications/pdf/pwc-executing-a-successful-listing-oil-and-gas.pdf

74

unconventional gas are located in countries with national research integrity frameworks –

US and UK.

The second characteristic of the O&G industry revealed in the UIE literature, is that

substantial O&G resources are found in nations with developing or transitional economies,

i.e., nations in the Middle East, Africa, South America and Asia - Tanzania (Vaaland &

Ishengoma, 2016), Iran (Anbardan, 2013), Kuwait (Al-Sultan, 1998), (Gstraunthaler &

Proskuryakova, 2012; Ngoasong, 2014 ) and Egypt (Ali, 2012). The motivations for and

nature of UIE relationships in these nations, as well as their policy settings, differ

remarkably from those in Australia. For example, in many countries there are legal

requirements for O&G producers to partner with universities for research and teaching, as

elements of localisation policies. Additionally, in many developing countries, national and

institutional research integrity frameworks do not exist or are not implemented (Nicholas H.

Steneck et al., 2015).

The non-essential nature of the relationship between the O&G industry and universities is

the third element discovered in the corpus of UIE journal articles. O&G industry linkages

with universities differ from those of the life sciences/pharma/biotechnology/healthcare and

medical technologies partnerships which tend to dominate discussions around UIE in

Australia. In the Australian context, O&G businesses traditionally had direct links with

engineering, geosciences and economics faculties for talent recruitment via professional

and industry associations. Research into geoscience and petroleum engineering was

conducted overseas, as a result of collaborations between producers, service companies,

governments (e.g. US, UK and Saudi) and a small number of universities (D. H. Hall,

1987). Until recently, Australia’s national O&G industry has been small, as compared with

that of other nations and with other domestic industries. Australia has small oil reserves on

a global scale (0.3%) and until recently, a small domestic natural gas market. However

more recently, the Australian O&G industry has rapidly expanded as the global demand for

Australian energy sources (coal, uranium, gas) has increased (Geoscience Australia,

2018). Australian and state government policies foster the expansion of the ‘energy’

industries for domestic purposes and export. At the same time, there are increased global

efforts to curb the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in response to climate change.

There is increasing scholarly, policy and lay interest in energy resources to improve

people’s livelihoods and business outcomes and in developing suitable control regulations.

75

Two examples challenge the independence and rigour of some O&G research. In some

quarters, there is long-held distrust of O&G industry-funded research. For decades, ‘big oil’

has been accused of advancing commercial goals to the detriment of science and the

public interest, e.g. capturing but not commercialising socially and environmentally

beneficial technologies (Hofmeister, 2011). More recently, the labelling of some research

as ‘frackademia’ demonstrates the distrust and lack of confidence in industry-funded

research investigating onshore gas extraction. Locally, researchers at the Australia

Institute critiqued the independence and rigour of GISERA research because of undue

influence by industry partners (Grudnoff, 2016). Some interviewees confirmed that

researchers working in the realm of unconventional gas, must assume there is potential for

their work to not only be reviewed by scientific peers but also scrutinised by others with

interests in gas e.g. policy-makers, regulators, lawyers and land holders among others.

The lack of scientific rigour in O&G research was raised by Miall and Miall (2002). They

observed that research about stratigraphy in the late 1990s conducted in Exxon-operated

laboratories and by Exxon personnel was widely accepted by the academic and petroleum

geology communities in the absence of data, replication or independent review.

Stratigraphy is a branch of geology concerned with the study of rock layers (strata) and

layering (stratification), and knowledge about the rock strata is crucial for exploration and

production of O&G. Together, these examples point to accusations of questionable

research practices.

Fourth, research funded by O&G companies provides multiple examples of how the

production and dissemination of knowledge is increasingly politicised by governments and

commercial interests (Wise, 2006). For example, Exxon paid for the university research

the results of which were submitted as evidence in support of its challenge to the punitive

fine that resulted from the Exxon Valdez case. The judge noted that “Because this

research was funded in part by Exxon, we decline to rely on it” (McGarity, 2010). There are

concerns that the differences in people’s perceptions of universities (high trust) and oil

companies (low trust) points to the public perception of universities as having conflicts of

interest and being ‘captured’ by industry interests (Borenstein & Pearson, 2008).

76

Together, these four insights about the O&G industry from the UIE literature highlight the

importance of context (e.g. country, industry, and socio-political context) and complexities

involved in extrapolating research findings about specific UIRCs to other sites. The

insights also point to increasing numbers of research partnerships with the O&G industry

in Australia and high levels of scientific, commercial and lay interest in research findings.

Knowledge of the industry in Australia is evolving quickly as production of gas onshore and

offshore expands. There is not a long legacy of research partnerships with the O&G

industry in Australia, in contrast to those in Norway or Houston, so UIRCs need to expect

high levels of interest in their research, and therefore scrutiny of research practices, from

outside the partnership. Those with concerns about the contribution of fossil fuels to

climate change and greenhouse gases now and into the future, e.g. climate scientists and

alternative energy researchers, have interests in scrutinising research findings and

practices.

2.4 Research Integrity in the UIE Literature

Within UIE scholarship, the integrity of industry-funded research is marginal to

contemporary concerns about the complementarity of university and industry partners,

understanding knowledge exchange and absorption processes, creating a conducive

public policy environment and stimulating university entrepreneurship (Ankrah & Al-

Tabbaa, 2015; Mascarenhas, Ferreira, & Marques, 2018; Skute et al., 2017). When

research integrity is discussed, it is revealed to be a values-based approach to research

governance. Some scholars believe that public scandals and controversies are driving

university ‘research integrity’ responses (Stossel, 2005). Others see that university

research integrity strategies lower the risk of public controversy because researchers and

stakeholders are sensitised to possible issues relating to new knowledge and emerging

technologies (Walsh, Graber, & Wolfe, 1997; T. Warner & Gluck, 2003). Other scholars

take a different approach and suggest that universities’ strategic responses to research

integrity result from increased oversight and direction from higher education regulators and

scrutiny from public and other stakeholders (Canary et al., 2015). Another driver of

research integrity activity is that for centuries, science has sought to establish a place in

society as an institution characterised by the qualities of integrity and trustworthiness.

These perspectives offer relevant but partial explanations for why research integrity is

significant in universities currently. The literature also reveals that research integrity relies

on demonstration or displays of integrity, rather than the lack of contrary evidence, i.e.,

77

universities must assure high education regulators, external funding agencies and the

public more broadly that they have appropriate governance frameworks and mechanisms

in place to mitigate or identify and punish research misconduct.

The UIE literature reveals that research integrity is linked to many different notions.

Research integrity is not an umbrella term per se, constituting all the meanings

simultaneously. Rather it is a notion that assumes more precise meanings within different

contexts. There are different notions about what research integrity is, how it is ensured, by

whom and by what methods, resulting in a myriad of cross-cutting statements, policies,

and guides about research integrity. Table 8 below lists some of the notions of research

integrity appearing in the UIE literature. The contents of this list somewhat replicate the list

of research integrity terms identified in a corpus of research integrity policy documents

(declarations, concordats, statements and codes) by Douglas-Jones and colleagues

(Douglas-Jones & Wright, 2017). The key differences are that the UIE literature focusses

on the integrity of the university-industry partnership through personal and organisational

links, and points to the significance of partnership governance. Additionally, there is a

distinctive ‘commercial lens’ where research integrity is linked to the creation of ‘valuable

outputs’ and ensuring efficient resource management. The governance of such research

partnerships becomes a significant undertaking.

Table 8: List of Notions related to Research Integrity in UIE Literature

Element of Research

Integrity

Details Example in

literature

Governance of partnership

Prevalence, nature and perceptions of organisational policies

around conflicts of interest, equal distribution of

power/costs/rewards to all partners, adherence to relevant

laws and regulations, resilience to organisational changes, e.g.

mergers and acquisitions (Yassi et al., 2010)

Governance for Scientific

Rigour

Resistant to undue influence for external stakeholders,

balancing rigour and relevance for industry partners,

appropriate protocols / methods / policies / procedures /

record-keeping

(Guide & Van

Wassenhove, 2007)

Identifying Research

Misconduct

Mechanisms for reporting misconduct / questions research

practices / whistleblowing / grievances, identifying breaches of

confidentiality,

(Bozeman et al.,

2016)

Dishonesty in employment Fraud, harassment, corruption (Baur et al., 2015)

Maintaining disciplinary

boundaries and norms

Disciplinary boundaries, adherence to methodologies,

authoritative scripts

(Breu & Hemingway,

2005)

Researcher Independence

Independence, autonomy, unrestricted research agendas and

choices of methodology

(G. R. Evans &

Packham, 2003)

78

Technical, commercial and

ethical competency of

researchers

Scientific / professional / administrative / technical, commercial

and ethical competence of researchers and other UIRC

members, particularly with regards to research integrity (O'Neill, 2015)

Maintaining reputation of

university and researchers Reputation, prestige, expertise, organisational identity, trust (Miall & Miall, 2002)

Industry funds creating

value for society Cost effectiveness, utility, minimising waste through UIE (Kezar, 2004)

Promoting culture of

research integrity

Personal integrity and values of researchers, university / firm

leaders – honesty, fairness, good behaviour and attitudes

(Borenstein &

Pearson, 2008)

Equity of access to

knowledge

Findings - publication, peer-review, Open Access,

confidentiality, no plagiarism, authorship, acknowledgement

(authors, funders), authority of representation, IP curtailing

innovation

(Franz, Childers, &

Sanderlin, 2012)

(J. Hall et al., 2014)

Significance of scientific

research

Significance, originality, creativeness, novel, innovativeness,

not just applied solutions for commercial benefit, adequate

promotion of findings – not over-emphasising or under-

emphasizing the potential impacts (McComas, 2012)

Care for research

participants

Care and respect for the wellbeing of research participants –

confidentiality (Blumenthal, 1996)

Increasing social impact of

research

Research impact, engagement, evidence for policymaking,

utility, significance, science communication, awareness

building

(K. Miller, McAdam,

Moffett, et al., 2016)

Accountability to all

stakeholders Accountability, transparency

(Tereskerz, Hamric,

Guterbock, & Moreno,

2009)

Promoting gender equity in

UIE Supporting gender equity across all elements of UIE research

(Crowe & Goldberger,

2009)

Championing social justice Promoting research that supports notions of social justice (Yassi et al., 2010)

Research integrity has aspirational, educational and regulatory components that seek to

motivate and regulate researchers (Hardie & Smith Devetak, 2014). Whether seen as goal,

process or strategy, research integrity refers to the governance of research practices.

There is no consistency as to how research organisations and higher education regulators

define the constituent elements of research integrity, but most seek to define the

relationships between researchers and others, e.g., researchers and their subject or

colleagues. Resonating with the idea of the Confucian five human duties to maintain moral

order, research integrity in the UIE literature variously relates to the eight responsibilities of

researchers. They comprise the responsibility of the researcher to: 1) scientific ideals and

norms (which include common ownership of science, objectivity, equal access to scientific

pursuits, rigour and verifiability and scepticism as in (Alice Lam, 2011)); 2) the profession

(e.g. the values and principles of the engineering, legal, medical or other professions as in

(Canary et al., 2015)) and (Yassi et al., 2010)) ; 3) other researchers (e.g. colleagues

within work groups and laboratories or peers within the discipline, as in (Pickersgill,

2012))); 4) students and junior researchers (e.g. with respect to their need for training,

supervision, mentoring and peer review, as in (Tartari, Perkmann, & Salter, 2014)); 5)

employers (e.g. employee obligations to the university to commercialise research, as in

79

(Walter, Schmidt, & Walter, 2016)); 6) funders (e.g. their contractual obligations for

resourcing and outputs as in (Benneworth, Pinheiro, & Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2016); 7)

subjects (e.g. human subjects in drug trials as in (Coleman & Bouësseau, 2008)); and 8)

society (e.g. impact of technology on society, as in (Miettinen, Tuunainen, & Esko, 2015).

This study takes the view that it is important to examine the organisational dimensions of

research integrity (nano-level of analysis) due to the substantial effects of research

organisations such as UIRCs on organisational and research culture, and to the effects of

the ultimate outputs of industry-funded research on society. However, questions relating to

the funding of specific research organisations e.g. GMOs or nuclear science, and its

consequences for public perception and the public’s trust in research integrity, are seldom

addressed by scholars (Andereggen et al., 2012) until there is a scandal or controversy

that draws attention to the organisational aspects of research and reveals how specific UIE

partnerships function. As discussed, UIE scholars view research integrity from a variety of

perspectives. In broad terms the literature suggests there are two elements of research

integrity relevant to UIE 1) the nature of research integrity governance; and 2) the key

organisational effects and outcomes of research integrity governance regimes. These

elements are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Together, these three

elements form the basis of the Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance

presented at Figure 4.

2.4.1 Four Key Factors Shaping UIRC Research Integrity Governance

UIE scholarship reveals there are four key factors shaping research integrity governance

in university-industry research partnerships. Briefly, the four factors are new forms of

knowledge exchange, changes to how universities operate, government incentives for UIE

and the significance of the local context. Each factor is discussed in more detail in the

following sections.

2.4.1.1 New patterns of knowledge creation and exchange

Systemic change in how knowledge is created and shared is shifting the ways in which

research is conducted and how universities are organised. Collaborative and

transdisciplinary research is common across many fields of research and is considered a

means to encourage more efficient utilisation of resources, promote quality, support

80

diversity and make high impacts. The term ‘Mode 2’ knowledge production was advanced

by Gibbons et al. (1994), to represent the evolution of knowledge production from

traditional academic disciplined based research to more context-driven, problem-focused

and interdisciplinary research. New networks and organisational structures are appearing

and changing forms of academic work, access to research findings, and uses of

technologies (Bornmann & Mutz, 2015; Cantwell, Kauppinen, & Slaughter, 2014; Genus &

Stirling, 2018). As research collaboration increases, the previously implicit integrity norms

and behaviours of research organisations and other organisations, (e.g. government

agencies, NGOs and firms) need to be negotiated, articulated and communicated with

partners and stakeholders.

Scholars point to the strength of the traditional networks, mentoring relationships and

disciplinary boundaries and to their contribution in ensuring the integrity of research. They

also question the impact of their collapse on academic work (Fuchs & Turner, 1986). This

breakdown of traditional forms of accountability and transparency within the scientific

community is accompanied by an upsurge in commercial, political and media interest in

research, new science, knowledge exchange and innovation. While fraudulent research or

FFP and sloppy science (questionable research practices QRP) have pertained throughout

the history of scientific knowledge production, recent years have seen perceptible interest

in research misconduct and research integrity from beyond the scientific community. There

are increasingly greater numbers of actors from outside universities scrutinising research

activities. These actors are often unfamiliar with university processes and activities, or in

some cases, familiar with university processes in former times or they have different world

views from most people today. For example, commercial actors potentially see research

integrity from a different perspective to scientists. As Liebowitz (2005) notes, many

commercial actors and government agencies promote the market-economy, which

includes privatisation, globalisation and international trade. Thus, it should not be

surprising that these actors support and fund research projects and elements of research

projects that contribute to their comparative advantage over their competitors, and support

the expansion of the market economy more broadly. In these contexts, the integrity of

university research is evaluated in terms of utility, cost effectiveness, comparative

advantage and quality. The new patterns of knowledge creation and exchange contribute

to making research integrity a significant element of UIRC governance, but one that is not

necessarily equally significant to all partners, nor interpreted in the same way.

81

2.4.1.2 Structural Changes to the Higher Education Sector

University researchers communicate with, engage with and are held accountable by UIE

stakeholders from non-scientific domains. Some universities, e.g. the London School of

Economics (LSE) have established guidelines about engaging with external partners and

have refined the practices of their highly active public relations teams. This is part of the

university’s response to the high-profile controversy around their having engaged with and

accepted funds from the Libyan dictatorship and awarded Libyan dictator Muammar

Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, a PhD (Baumann, 2011). LSE is described as a place where

‘practice met theory in the whirlpool of the currents of time’ and reveals an unresolved

tension between academic integrity and the needs of the outside world (G. R. Evans &

Packham, 2003; McLennan, Osborne, & Vaux, 2005).

There has been increased political interest in both promoting UIE and safeguarding the

integrity of industry-funded research as demonstrated by the U.S. National Institute of

Health, which has funded a research agenda focused on research integrity since 2000;

and by the establishment of the U.K. Research Integrity Office in 2006 (Blumenthal 2003;

T. D. Warner & Roberts, 2004). While non-scientific stakeholders and new forms of

knowledge exchange shape research integrity governance, universities remain one of the

guardians of research integrity, along with journals and government-funded research

councils (G. R. Evans & Packham, 2003). Research integrity is not uniform across

locations. It is related to the size of a nation’s scientific community, the role of science and

innovation in different national economies and the resulting policy frameworks (Heitman,

Litewka, & Vasconcelos, 2016)

In many nations, including Australia, the notion of academia being self-regulating is

passing. Increasing numbers of mechanisms contribute to safeguarding research integrity,

including, but not limited to codes of conduct within universities, scientific associations,

research councils and other actors across the global research enterprise. These latter

include the higher education regulator and many other government agencies responsible

for a myriad of laws and regulations (Wessels, Visagie, & Van Heerden, 2015). For

example, many universities, including UQ, maintain comprehensive legislative compliance

registers (University of Queensland, n.d. ). Scholars also highlight the significance of

82

human research ethics frameworks comprising a set of standards to guide ethics

committees that have been established in research organisations. Ethics committees

review proposed research projects that involve human and animal subjects. In some

nations these standards are entrenched in legislation and there is some form of national

oversight, whereas in others there is none. In addition to the national standards, there are

also significant international standards which are well known within certain fields, e.g. the

International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects issued

by the Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences Committees (Coleman

& Bouësseau, 2008)

The UIE scholarship reveals various mechanisms in the higher education sector to support

research integrity. These include articulating the values and principles of research

integrity, assigning responsibilities among actors, developing mechanisms to foster

research integrity and alleviate misconduct. In the context of universities, research integrity

commonly revolves around notions of compliance, institutionalising the wellbeing of

research participants and ensuring the accuracy and progress of the scientific record.

2.4.1.3 Policy-driven growth in UIE and Research Integrity

As previously noted, various governments, national and sub-national are enabling more

UIE through an array of policies focussed on innovation e.g. the NISA and regional

economic development. Governments have a variety of mechanisms to hand, including tax

incentives, research grants, collaborative research programs and licencing requirements to

incentivise universities and firms to collaborate. Particularly, there is interest in fostering

partnerships for the translation of research into commercialised products and services.

However, as Roy Green noted in his submission to a government inquiry into innovation in

2015, Australian business R&D, government R&D and university research do not align as

they do in other countries. Business R&D reflects the composition of the national economy

and is heavily orientated towards industries such as mining, energy and commercial

services. University research is heavily concentrated on health and the social sciences,

whereas government R&D is strongly orientated towards sectors such as agriculture,

mining and energy. (R. Green, 2015). Thus, in Australia there is a particularly crucial role

for government in stimulating collaboration between the key actors across the triple helix –

business, government and university. This situation underpins a scholarly and policy

83

research agenda to better understand knowledge exchange and research

commercialisation mechanisms (Chai & Shih, 2016).

Rapid technological and social changes are changing the environment in which research is

conducted. Research integrity governance frameworks at all levels – national, institutional,

professional and others – should reflect the current realities of research activity (National

Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017). The growth of UIE and the

associated impacts of industry involvement in conducting research are creating unique

challenges to the integrity of scientific research. The commercial potential of science

means that researchers potentially collaborating with fellow professionals who have

divergent understandings of how, what and why research should be conducted. Several

intergovernmental and national science organisations are driving interest in research

integrity and note that the rising industry involvement in science necessitates stronger

national and institutional research governance frameworks to ensure the integrity of

research (Kretser et al., 2019; Kretser, Murphy, & Dwyer, 2017).

2.4.1.4 Significance of Local Context

Context is of paramount importance when analysing UIE patterns and determinants

(Tijssen & Wong, 2016: p2). Scholars have identified that proximity, geographical,

relational and cognitive (e.g. universities offering degree programs related to relevant

industry), are key determinants of UIE (A. Johnston & Huggins, 2015) (Maietta, 2015). As

previously noted, research integrity is not uniform across disciplines and locations.

Research integrity practices and debates have progressed further than others in some

disciplines e.g. nanotechnology and GMO crops. Thus, in this study research integrity

governance is considered as a located and temporal process where UIRC members link

the formal public policy and university rules to concrete actions. Understanding and

responding to the local socio-spatial context is a crucial element of research integrity,

particularly in the realm of macroethics, which is discussed in more detail later. It is

concluded therefore, that research integrity governance should be seen as the intertwining

of local context and organisational practices rather than a context-free social experiment of

ethical decisions and dilemmas.

84

2.5 Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance

This is an in-depth case study integrating subjective experiences and document analysis.

It is not appropriate to generate a set of propositions for simulation, experimentation or a

prediction, but it is suitable for the development of an analytical framework to guide a case

study. As discussed in detail in the next chapter, this study uses a holistic, non-linear,

post-positivist approach aimed at theory generation through an abductive approach

(Dubois & Gadde, 2017). The approach uses an analytical framework, in this case the

Provisional Model of Research Integrity to guide the collection and analysis of the

fieldwork data. The elements of the analytical framework were drawn from the UIE

literature, condensed from 17 elements of research integrity established in the UIE

literature (Table 8). Closer analysis of the elements of research integrity allowed for them

to grouped around the research practices and research collaboration mechanisms. Key

organisational responses to ensure the integrity of university-industry research include

promoting the benefits of science and protecting the scientific record, identifying and

punishing scientific misconduct and promoting a responsible research culture and the

virtues that underpin research integrity. The aim of conceptual frameworks is not to explain

the social phenomenon but to provide useful ground on which meaningful research

questions and their explanations can be built. A framework is presented below (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Provisional Research Integrity Governance Analytical Model

85

2.5.1 Governing UIRCs to ensure Research Integrity

In broad terms, the UIE scholarship reveals there are two dimensions of research integrity.

Predictably, there is a significant focus on ensuring the veracity of the scientific processes,

or ‘microethics’. The second dimension relates to how research integrity is inextricably

linked to the strength and integrity of the research partnership and how it attracts

resources, legitimises research, researchers and the organisations involved, and

distributes power and decision-making. Both elements are discussed in further detail in the

following sections.

2.5.1.2 Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Process

Applied ethicist John Ladd, separated engineering ethics into ‘microethics’ and

‘macroethics’ depending on whether the focus is on the relationships between individual

engineers and their colleagues, clients and employers or on the collective social

responsibility of the profession to society (Ladd, 1980). Since then, ethicists from various

professions, including biomedicine and nanotechnology, seek clarity of ethical challenges

through separating the ‘microethical’ challenges inherent in the research process (e.g.

experiments on humans and complete reporting of results), from the ‘macroethical’ (e.g.

research effects on sustainable development and social inequity). The UIE literature

commonly refers to research integrity either with a focus on the activities of individual

researchers rather than on the broader organisational or societal perspective (e.g. the

‘chilling effect’ of political controversy on researcher practice (Kempner, 2008); or with a

focus on incomplete or biased reporting of results (Healy, 2002). There are various

elements of ‘microethics’, some of which are essential for all research, but others of which

are only relevant within specific fields or industries. For example, the protection of subjects

is a fundamental element of research integrity for all research (Blumenthal 2003). Other

key elements include managing intellectual property (Cummings, 2014; G. R. Evans &

Packham, 2003), data management (Blumenthal 2003) and having the organisational

systems and policies in place to address allegations of research misconduct and the

systems and policies to ensure there is no fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism

(Blumenthal 2003; G. R. Evans & Packham, 2003).

86

2.5.1.3 Ensuring the Integrity of the Partnership

The second element of research integrity relates to the nature of the UIE partnership. As

scholars note, trust and confidence in the collaborative partners’ reliability and integrity is

crucial for successful partnerships (Plewa et al., 2005). The UIE scholarship identifies the

need for all partners from the university and the industry sides to find value in the

relationship, and how this value is judged differs with one’s perspective (Giuliani & Arza,

2009; Markus Perkmann et al., 2011). For example, regional governments want to see

evidence of diffused knowledge, whereas firms seek improved technologies and

comparative advantage. There is evidence that UIE can improve the use of research for

policy making (Rickinson, Sebba, & Edwards, 2011) (Cherney et al., 2013). However, no

matter the level of analysis used, the integrity of the research is presumed in scientific,

industrial, legal and public policy models of research, albeit judged by different standards.

The accumulated findings from the UIE literature show that UIRC research integrity is

linked to stakeholders finding value in the research.

It is also crucial to ensure that power is distributed in such a way within the partnership to

ensure the integrity of research. This is particularly relevant to partnerships where the

industry partners exert control over a component of the research process e.g. research

design, access to raw data, and interpretation of study findings and peer review (G. R.

Evans & Packham, 2003). Not surprisingly, there is a perception from inside partnerships

and from outside, that the sharing of power between university and commercial interests

on a continuing basis heightens the risk of individual and organisational conflicts of

interest.

The effects of conflicted interests, at the individual and organisational level, is the focus of

many articles, including but not limited to those of (Blumenthal 2003), (Campbell et al.,

2007), and (Resnik, 2015). While most pertain to the pharmaceutical and medical device

industries in the US, there is growing interest in other industries and locations (Canary et

al., 2015; Lux, 2002). There is also a stream of literature investigating the conflicts of

interest by university leaders and senate members (board of trustees in the US) with

strong professional, commercial and political networks (Bastedo, 2009) (Resnik, 2015).

While many higher education regulators and public sector commissions insist universities

have and implement conflict of interest policies, it has been shown that transparency and

87

self-reporting of corporate ties do not always mitigate bias (Baur et al., 2015). The

literature shows that UIRCs inherently have a high risk of conflicts of interest due to the

nature of public-private partnerships, but that the divide between public and private

interests is increasingly blurred. There is an unstated assumption that ‘good’ university

governance policies and practices underpin research organisational cultures which

alleviate research misconduct.

2.5.2 Governing for Research Integrity – Common approaches

Due to the complex and context-specific nature of research work, legislating for research

integrity is impossible. Instead, governments, professional associations and universities

adopt various measures to foster research and identify and punish scientific misconduct –

a system of networked governance. However, scholars point to the patchwork of

constantly changing guidelines and policies which can be difficult to interpret in relation to

research activities (Bozeman et al., 2016). Some researchers see that this introduces

unnecessary administrative burdens for researchers and keeps them from their ‘core

business’ (Stossel, 2005; Walsh et al., 1997). In broad terms, UIE scholarship reveals that

universities have three organisational responses to research integrity. They are as follows:

2.5.2.1 Identify and punish scientific misconduct

Public awareness of alleged and material cases of misconduct, corruption and maleficence

within UIEs has arisen and research organisations are responding (Bozeman et al., 2016;

G. R. Evans & Packham, 2003; Stossel, 2005). Most universities and other actors in the

global research enterprise, i.e. journals, research councils and foundations, have

developed policies and procedures to assist with the identification of scientific misconduct.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used to predict plagiarism.

Apart from the traditional approaches to research misconduct (e.g. FFP) and sloppy

science, there is increasing interest in the forms of misconduct that relate to how scholarly

publications are produced, including dubious journals and ‘review and citation rings’

whereby fake reviews and cross-citation increase the impact factor of authors.

A related key area of interest concerns conflicts of interest (COI) and the effects of

reporting potential and realised personal and institutional COI (Canary et al., 2015;

Cosgrove et al., 2016; Resnik & Elliott, 2013). Research has shown that COI policy is

88

differentially socialised between disciplines and that compliance rates vary, with medical

and public health disciplines more knowledgeable and compliant than other areas. There

is a sizeable body of scholarship demonstrating that private sources of funding and the

researchers’ financial interests can shape research findings (G. R. Evans & Packham,

2003; Lux, 2002; Resnik & Elliott, 2013). The implementation and compliance rates of COI

policies are key to ensuring research integrity.

2.5.2.2 Promote research integrity values

Research integrity is a fundamental principle of universities and professional researchers

(Walsh et al., 1997; T. Warner & Gluck, 2003). The safety and wellbeing of human

subjects has been strong justification for their holding this position (Blumenthal 2003; Das

& Jedlicka, 1993). The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine

(NASEM) Fostering Integrity in Research report identified six core values underlying

research integrity: objectivity, openness, accountability, honesty, fairness and stewardship

(2017). These align with the eight principles of the Australian Code for Responsible

Conduct of Researchers (2018), which are: honesty, rigour, transparency, fairness,

respect, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, accountability and

promotion of responsible research practices. Together, these values and principles

underpin public trust in higher education’s public mission and universities’ role in

promoting the public interest (Kezar, 2004; Y. S. Lee, 1996; Lieberwitz, 2005; Tasker &

Packham, 1990).

How universities and research groups engender an organisation that prioritises research

integrity and can assure stakeholders of the integrity of industry-funded research is the

subject of a large body of scholarly, policy and professional interest (Korenman, Berk,

Wenger, & Lew, 1998). While the researchers within a field of study tend to expect similar

norms of behaviour, there is no consensus between disciplines, nor is there a joint

understanding of how universities should respond. Research integrity is context-and event-

specific and the learnings are not necessarily able to be transferred into other situations.

For example, the identifying and rectifying gender inequity was prioritised in some

research groups at particularly points in time, and efforts were made identify the nature

and determinants of gender inequity. Crowe showed that UIE in agriculture is gendered.

Female researchers have fewer industry contacts and are more likely to be concerned with

the social and environmental consequences of their research (Crowe & Goldberger, 2009).

89

Another example, engineering HDR students privileged their attachment to their

professional norms and behaviours, over scientific goals. Thus, engineers were more likely

to respond favourably to organisational goals, in contrast to scientists who aligned with

norms of behaviours of their research field and placed more value on professional

autonomy (Schuelke-Leech, 2013).

2.5.2.3 Protect the scientific record

The UIE scholarship shows that the integrity of the scientific record is maintained through

ensuring full disclosure and openness of communication within the research environment

e.g. keeping clinical trial data in the public domain (Blumenthal 2003; Healy, 2002;

Schmitt, 1997). Peer review is an essential mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the

scientific record and research integrity more generally (Fuchs & Turner, 1986).

Researchers suggest that industry-funding has the potential to bias the scientific record

unless preventative and remedial governance mechanisms are put in place. Together, the

UIE scholarship reveals universities pursue three organisational strategies to ensure

research integrity research, that is define arrangements to identify and remedy

misconduct, promote of research integrity values through staff and student training, to

ensure the preservation of the objectivity and accuracy of the scientific records through

seeking retractions.

2.6 End of Chapter Summary

The key objectives of this chapter were to present how research integrity is conceptualised

within UIE scholarship and to devise an analytical framework to direct this study. The

literature highlighted the changing nature of UIE and research integrity. Rather than being

contained within scientific communities, industry funds make research susceptible to being

challenged by stakeholders inside and outside the university. Cuts to government funds

and increasing reliance on private funders, bring high financial stakes to universities, firms

and regional economies and sometimes reveal power imbalances within university-

industry research partnerships. Some scholars see that industry funding compromises

research findings, partly due to conscious and subconscious self-censorship (Bekelman,

Li, & Gross, 2003; Blumenthal 2003; G. C. Gray, 2013). Self-censorship can take many

forms, from not raising sensitive topics, sharing challenging data or results, to modulating

responses for particular audiences. Thus, UIRC governance arrangements are crucial to

90

safeguard research integrity (Schweigert, 1987). How the provisional analytical framework

directs the study is outlined in the following chapter.

91

Part B: Approach to Study

3 Chapter Three – Research Design

3.0 Preamble

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research design. The research design links

the research question, “How does an Australian university-industry research centre,

funded by the O&G industry, attempt to safeguard and demonstrate the integrity of its

research?” to an appropriate strategy for collection of data, analysis and the

communication of findings. The dynamic context and multiple participant realities of

research integrity governance point toward adopting an explorative qualitative research

method (Yin, 2014) .23 The research design features a single UIE case study , which

mostly follows the tactics outlined by Dubois and Gabbe (2017) and Farquhar (2012) with

slight modifications, and is discussed in more detail in the following sections. This study

purposefully takes a ‘work-floor’ perspective to highlight the complex operating context.

In general terms, this study interrogates the notion of research integrity governance using

accepted norms and protocols of the case study approach familiar to organisational

management scholars. The case of the UQ-CCSG was purposely selected due to the

nature of its organisational structures and operating context within an unfolding scientific

controversy during the formative period 2014-2016 – a time when the industry was moving

from the construction to production phase, legislative changes were being made, the

media coverage of the industry was high and the UQ-CCSG had recently been launched.

The UQ-CCSG is an unusual case within the Australian context as it represents an

uncommon form of research joint venture, with its own organisational identity and

governance mechanisms. Adding richness to the case are the public and scientific

controversies surrounding the impact of the CSG industry.

23 In this study, ‘participants’ is the term used to describe the people who contributed to preparation of this thesis. The broader categories of ‘stakeholders’ refers to people with interests in the UQ-CCSG activities. There are stakeholders who engage with the UQ-CCSG but are outside the scope of this study, e.g., university librarians, members of communities impacted by the CCSG industry. A more detailed list of stakeholders with interests in UQ-CCSG activities is presented in Appendix 2.

92

Case studies are usually defined by their objectives and design. While there is no single,

widely accepted formula for demonstrating quality in qualitative research, some scholars

suggest that there are several key markers that researchers should attend to (Mats

Alvesson & Sandberg, Siggelkow, 2007; Tracy, 2010). The key markers in this study

include selecting an interesting and worthy research question that resonates with research

end-users and contributes to scholarship. Other markers of quality and methodological

accountability include the transparent and rigorous collection and analysis of data,

communication of findings that convey the richness and complexity of the phenomenon,

and the ethical behaviour, credibility and sincerity of the researcher. The remainder of the

chapter attends to these markers and is organised into six sections.

The first section describes the post-positivist ontological and epistemological positioning of

the approach and its implications for the research design. Second, is an outline of the

rationale and approach to the case study design including research methodology, research

design, case selection, data collection and data analysis. The third section considers how

ethical issues arose from the research strategy. Fourth, is a summary of the methods for

data collection and analysis. The variety and richness of source material constitute

descriptive qualitative data, from which the revised model for research integrity

governance is derived. An overview of the strategies employed in the thesis to ensure

rigorous and useful findings is outlined in the fifth section. The sixth section concludes this

chapter, and reflects on how the thesis’ aims, methods and findings are consistent with a

qualitative case study approach. Consequently, this chapter provides a framework, against

which the findings (Chapters 4 and 5) can be considered as constitutive of a socially

responsible approach to UIE governance.

3.0.1 Methodological accountability is crucial to UIE research

Stake (1995) recommends that case studies should focus on what is being studied (the

case) rather than on how it is studied (the method). Supporting this notion, the key goal of

this study is to characterise the phenomenon of research integrity governance.

Nevertheless, there are various explanations as to why this study necessitates a higher

degree of methodological accountability than is regularly found in case studies of UIE. The

first reason is that UIE is a ‘young field’ where strong sets of practices, values and

concepts are still being established. In more established fields of study there are specific

93

ways of viewing the reality that binds academic communities together. In these fields,

there are implicit ways of approaching research. UIE scholarship is yet to generate a

coherent set of methodological principles. It is difficult to describe phenomena and to draw

generalisations from fragmented fields of research in UIE, unless there is methodological

transparency.

Recently, there have been efforts to consolidate knowledge occurring across the field (see

Table 3 in the previous chapter). Nonetheless, some scholars suggest that progress in the

UIE field has been hindered by the lack of established connections between previously

developed empirical models and theoretical understandings (Markus Perkmann et al.,

2013; Skute et al., 2017; Teixeira & Mota, 2012). On the bright side, UIE research is

beginning to coalesce around certain themes and key analytical frameworks, i.e., various

methods seem to dominate the field, including bibliometrics, surveys of participants and

case studies.

The second reason for emphasising the chosen methodology is that the client, UQ-CCSG,

has deep roots in the technical and commercially-focused disciplines. This made

conducting social research, especially qualitative, around and within these quantitatively-

driven research fields difficult. The qualitative research methodology used in this study

was not familiar to many UQ-CCSG participants, so it was necessary for the author to be

overtly competent in explaining the goals and nature of the approaches used. On several

occasions, it was necessary to explain the methodology used, with reference to the

traditional positivist scientific methods that researchers were more familiar. For some,

qualitative research had little legitimacy or relevance. Additionally, some UQ-CCSG

participants expected the social scientists to provide objective evidence as to why certain

social phenomena occur and to provide solutions for firms and policy-makers, rather than

provide partial and persuasive explanations of social phenomenon.

UIE is an interdisciplinary research endeavour positioned at the nexus of scholarship,

policy and practice, drawing together scientific and social research. The third reason for

why methodological transparency is particularly needed in multidisciplinary or

interdisciplinary research endeavours, is that researchers need to suspend

epistemological inequalities. Researchers have shown that the articulation of assumptions

and limitations is an integral part of multidisciplinary research processes and necessary for

94

a robust interpretation and implementation of the findings (Bammer, 2013). UIE

scholarship draws upon various disciplinary perspectives (as shown in in the previous

chapter), which enables the scope of UIE literature to expand. The increasing scholarly

interest in UIE illuminates the complex connections between features of UIE and the

factors that contribute to it (Link, 2015; Skute et al., 2017). As UIE scholars come from a

variety of disciplinary, national, and industrial backgrounds, an unambiguous explanation

of methodological assumptions is prudent.

Fourth, beyond the UIE field, the global standard around methodological accountability is

evolving, reflecting the increasing number and diversity of people involved in funding,

producing and using research. As discussed in the previous chapter, the global research

enterprise is growing and becoming more interdependent. The clear articulation of

research methodologies responds to the current challenges within scientific communities

around producing quality research for diverse end-users, being able to replicate it and to

evaluate the social impact.

In sum, the increased ethical scrutiny that comes with investigating a controversial case

study, has generated challenges with respect to choosing an appropriate methodology.

Contemporary social science research in the postmodern era encompasses an eclectic

array of scholarly theorising. The research approach is clearly articulated in this thesis so

that readers will not misconstrue the value and impact of the research based on their own

training and experiences. Social research can only be meaningfully interpreted when the

reader has sufficient understanding of the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of the

disciplines that are drawn on (K. Moon & Blackman, 2014). Clearly defined methodologies

provide clarity to research users who are outside academic disciplines. That is important

due to rising levels of oversight and accountability of university employees and growth in

evidence-based policy-making and commercial decision-making.

3.1 The Case Study Approach

Together, the research question, the complex nature of the phenomenon, the access to

multiple sources of data and the capabilities of the researcher suggest that a case study is

an appropriate approach for this study. The first impression from the field was that the UQ-

CCSG had the attributes of a good case study, as described by Dooley (2007): a setting,

characters, events, problems and conflicts. Nonetheless, there were initial concerns that in

95

some fields, case studies are perceived to be less rigorous, of less quality and less

scientific than other methods. Critics suggest that the findings of case studies tend to

confirm researchers’ preconceived biases, are unable to be reproduced and therefore

produce illegitimate and unscientific findings (Nzinga et al., 2018; Wrona & Gunnesch,

2016).

The inherent nature of case studies does not meet the standard scientific norms for

positivist or interpretivist research. Flyvbjerg (2006) responds to these concerns, and

demonstrates that ‘small-N’ or single cases have in-built rigour that differs from the

dominant hypothetico-deductive methods. Case study researchers report that conducting a

case study is a learning process whereby they cycle between their world views,

conceptualisations, identified biases and the empirical data, constantly criticizing and

revising their explanations. Often it is difficult to record and report these reflective and

complicated thought processes, so the reporting of case studies often obscures the

methodology (Dubois & Gadde, 2017; Farquhar, 2012). Case studies also suffer from

more transcendent trustworthiness issues regarding the researcher’s immersion in the

data, the presentation of results and social validity, but the sustained efforts and

competency of the researcher can ameliorate these concerns. As this work contributes to

the scholarship examining the management of UIE, it is germane to consider the norms of

the field. Similar concerns to the ones laid out above, lead the reputable journals of

management (which are keystones in defining the field), to publish few articles based on

case study methodologies (Köhler, 2016; Pratt, 2009). Nonetheless, closer consideration

of the research problem confirmed that there were several reasons why a single case

study design was a suitable approach.

One, case studies are a proven approach for generating new insights into an established

challenge or phenomenon where it would be difficult to gather those insights through other

approaches. Case study research can be categorised as descriptive, exploratory (theory-

building) or explanatory (theory-testing) (Farquhar, 2012). In contrast to experimental and

survey-based designs, where the constructs of interest need to be tightly defined in

advance, the case study approach allows researchers some flexibility in investigating

novel and interesting phenomena that emerge over the course of the research. As

research integrity governance in different contexts is under-theorised, an ‘exploratory’

method of data collection and analysis was used to surface characteristics and possible

96

causative factors, rather than data points. A case study design is particularly useful when

existing theories are incomplete or unable to provide a satisfactory representation of the

studied phenomenon (Geertz, 1973; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Through examining the

unexpected findings, the empirical data can expand or challenge existing theory (Mats

Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Two, some researchers see that case studies are only appropriate in the preliminary

stages of developing a new theory or field, when the relevant variables are still being

identified and explored (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). However, as Bluhm and colleagues

note, both qualitative and quantitative insights are needed to progress knowledge and it is

not necessary to choose one over the other. In-depth qualitative analysis can provide

many useful insights at any stage of theory-building (2011). While single qualitative case

research provides particularly strong insights when examining a new phenomenon, it is

also useful for enhancing extant theories, evaluating corporate or policy initiatives, and

drawing together fragmented knowledge (Dubois & Gadde, 2017; Wrona & Gunnesch,

2016). This study does all three through enhancing knowledge about the social realities of

UIE, examining how researchers and others working in a UIRC ensure the integrity of

industry-funded research and drawing together the fractured understandings of the

integrity of industry-funded research from extant UIE scholarship.

Three, case studies are useful when ‘how’ questions are being asked about a set of

contemporary events over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 2014: 1). The

challenges to the integrity of the UQ-CCSG research have been a significant realpolitik

concern for the UIRC leaders with material consequences, e.g., resourcing engagement

and communication within the Centre and with external stakeholders. The challenges

reflected the controversies around several research centres focused on unconventional

gas research funded by the O&G industry (Hardie & Smith Devetak, 2014). The goal was

not to directly shape UQ-CCSG practices and structures (i.e., through action research) but

instead to understand them within the context of their natural settings (Eisenhardt &

Graebner, 2007). Organisationally-related case study research is often practical, and

frequently has normative objectives, e.g., improving performance, efficiency or social

responsibility. That is, in this case, the establishment of the UQ-CCSG was presented as a

successful example of UIE by university leaders (i.e., at the Uniquest Research

Commercialisation Workshop, held June 2015), but safeguarding research integrity was

97

identified as being a challenge for UQ-CCSG members and some stakeholders. Thus, the

UQ-CCSG provides a case to study that can be evaluated as being both successful and

problematic from managerial and policy perspectives.

Four, case studies provide a useful way of understanding the design and function of

organisations where several components are interacting simultaneously, ones that cannot

be separated from their operating context easily (Yin, 2014). It was clear from the outset of

this study, that research integrity governance was dynamic and closely intertwined with the

operating context, including but not limited to the field of research, company, industry,

university and the national political context. Scholarly misconduct and research integrity

are not merely explained by individual motivations or pathologies. The organisational

context – structures, regulations and cultures – are central elements (Freckelton, 2016).

For example, commonly, Australian universities receive most of their research income

from the Federal and State governments. These governments have moral and legal

obligations to meet the objectives of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (2015) and

the 2015 Paris United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) arrangements. It

follows that as publicly-funded education institutions, universities have a correlated

mission to promote sustainable development through research and teaching and through

the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The case study approaches the relationships

between multiple and competitive organisational missions.

Five, while a mixed-methods approach was considered suitable for statistically meaningful

results, a qualitative case study approach was deemed to be more fitting because of the

exploratory approach and ‘small-N’ population. In contrast, a mixed methods approach

examines populations that can produce statistically meaningful results. Some positivists

suggest that it is not possible to generalise the findings of case studies. However, as

Tsang (2014) succinctly shows, this is only in the case of within-population

generalisations, for instance, for statistical generalisations across organisations. Case

studies have merits over quantitative methods in terms of providing insights into ways of

assessing how the research findings can be generalised; identifying cases that do not

conform; and in terms of theoretical generalisation.

Accordingly, this single case study of the UQ-CCSG has several interconnected elements:

(1) the research question is a contemporary challenge identified by the participants; (2)

98

there are no accepted models or laws to determine which factors are most significant or

the connections between the factors; (3) the setting is contemporary, dynamic and

significant; (4) the boundaries between the context and the phenomenon are not clearly

defined; (5) the researcher had little control over behavioural events, and sought minimal

influence or impact on the activity; and (6) the researcher intensely examined the site,

leading to a product that is richly descriptive. The single case study is a form of qualitative

research method used by management researchers, and it is becoming a popular method

for UIE research (Bluhm et al., 2011; Welch, Plakoyiannaki, Piekkari, & Paavilainen-

Mäntymäki, 2013).

3.1.1 Research Design

The characteristic messiness and ‘definitional morass’ of case studies makes it difficult to

explain the sequencing and boundaries between the various stages of the study and the

chains of evidence (Gerring, 2006:17). Figure 5 displays the flow of activity through listing

the major activities and outputs used to produce this PhD. With the benefit of hindsight, it

is possible to display the process as sequential, though – as with much social science

research – the reality was less orderly. The research moved between activities, sometimes

reflecting deeply on what was observed, or responding to external stakeholder interests in

how the research was positioned, progressing or establishing the initial findings.

Essentially there were two blocks of fieldwork conducted 2014-2016, separated by an

extensive review of the UIE scholarship, which narrowed the focus and produced the

Provisional Model for Research Integrity Governance. The initial tranche of fieldwork

sought to understand the concerns and challenges of the UQ-CCSG. Through discussions

with UQ-CCSG staff and an initial review of the literature, as discussed in the previous

chapter, the core constructs of research integrity governance were deduced (as in Figure

4) and a timeline for subsequent analysis was developed. Both served as validation tools

throughout the research process (Langley, 1999). This construct set the parameters for

gathering and making sense of the data from the field during the second block of fieldwork.

The researcher’s technical and commercial literacy about CSG was low at the beginning of

this analysis (as for so many other CSG industry stakeholders). There were statements by

some that suggested that the role of the researcher was to progress communication and

engagement with stakeholders. For example, the minutes of one of the community

99

engagement meetings organised by a CSG firm stated, “One of the first research

proposals the UQ-CCSG proposed was around research governance to demonstrate that

there was no bias in the research undertaken, even though it was funded by CSG

proponents.”24 Thus, some UQ-CCSG stakeholders assumed that the goal of the

researcher was to participate in events and enhance community engagement strategies,

which it was not.

The aim of the second tranche of fieldwork was to use the analytical framework provided

by the Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance to gain a more in-depth

understanding of the UQ-CCSG setting through observations, interviews and document

analysis. As the research progressed, the discussions and observations about how UQ-

CCSG participants related the quality and integrity of the research, did not resonate with

the notions of research integrity articulated in the Australian Code for the Responsible

Conduct of Research or the ‘National Code’, or in discussions about the Responsible

Conduct of Research (RCR) in the United States. Existing documentation of university

structures and procedures for research integrity only provided partial guidance for UQ-

CCSG and interested stakeholders. The organisational structures presented, and key

activities undertaken appeared to reflect the orthodox research commercialisation and

translation models discussed in the UIE literature.

The continuing public, scientific and commercial debates about CSG industrial processes,

and the impact of the industry on the environment and communities has ensured that the

UQ-CCSG had a broad and diverse range of stakeholders. This in fact suggested that

research integrity was not merely focussed on quashing scholarly misconduct and

promoting the virtues of research integrity, but also on ensuring that the research and the

research organisation responded to local community concerns. The emerging debates

around the social responsibilities of research taking place in Europe under the rubric of

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) seem to have some relevance, but a coherent

24 Minutes of meeting are available at Arrow Surat Community Reference Group https://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/16218/20150305-ERTM-MIN-ASCRG-Minutes-26-Feb-Final.pdf (Accessed 12/07/2018)

https://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/16218/20150305-ERTM-MIN-ASCRG-Minutes-26-Feb-Final.pdf

https://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/16218/20150305-ERTM-MIN-ASCRG-Minutes-26-Feb-Final.pdf

100

debate has not been taken up by Australian policymakers and scholars (Macnaghten et

al., 2014; R. Owen et al., 2013).25

A facet of phenomenon is captured here in a case study to obtain a more thorough

understanding of research integrity, including the pressures that UIE exerts on researchers

and the interests that it supports or undermines. Through investigating research integrity in

the UQ-CCSG, the claimed potential of UIE is compared with its practical achievements

and consequences.

Figure 5: The Research Design

3.1.2 Demonstrating the validity and quality of this study

As presented in Chapter Two, UIE is an interdisciplinary research endeavour, informed by

different disciplinary traditions, lexicons and epistemologies. Although the various

disciplines have different perspectives about what constitutes a quality qualitative single

case study, there are common features of high-quality research. These features relate to

25 Australian scholars contributed to the RRI-Practice project under Horizon 2020. The report was delivered in mid-2018 and is available at https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_AUSTRALIA.pdf

https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_AUSTRALIA.pdf


101

the value of the research question, the description and implementation of suitable

procedures to ensure a truthful interpretation of the data, and the capacity to transfer the

research findings to other contexts (Farquhar, 2012; Garside, 2014). The key tactics for

ensuring the validity of the research design are listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Indicators of Case Study Research Quality

Tests Case Study Tactic Phase of Research

Construct validity

Sound research question, containing suitable

elements and boundaries which is suited to

qualitative enquiry Design

Describe context clearly Reporting

Identify and account for personal or

institutional biases that may have influenced

the study Design / Reporting

Choose case and sampling of participants

pertinent to the research question Design / Data Collection

Derive analytical framework from extant

scholarship Design / Literature Review

Empathy with research participants -

acknowledge and report multiple realities of

participants through prolonged engagement in

the field

Design / Data Collection / Analysis /

Reporting

Using multiple sources of data to minimise

bias Research Design / Data Collection

Competent researcher All aspects

Internal validity

Derive an analytical framework from the extant

scholarship Design / Literature Review

Collect data appropriately and ethically Data Collection

Data analysed appropriately (looking for

patterns and grouping) Data Analysis

Well-documented chains of evidence and

decision-making around the research

approach Data Collection / Data Management

Address potential and realised ethical issues Design / Data Collection / Reporting

Continuing critical reflection of methods Data Collection / Analysis

Report using rich description and vignettes Data Collection / Analysis / Reporting

Manage data Data Collection / Analysis

External validity

(generalisability)

Assert links to extant scholarship and

contemporary policy and practice Research Design / Reporting

Integrate feedback from reporting of initial

findings at conferences / research events Data Analysis / Reporting

Manage data Data

Linear, consistent and persuasive narrative Reporting

Table developed by the author from Yin (2014), Farquhar (2012), Garside (2014), Köhler (2016), Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki (2008), and Tracy (2010).

102

3.1.3 Selection of a Single Case Study

The justification for selecting a single case is straightforward. The UQ-CCSG was chosen

as it is unusual, revelatory and there was the opportunity for extensive access by the

researcher (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2014). The single-case methodology, in

this instance, exploits the opportunity to explore research integrity in an industry-funded

research centre within an evolving public debate, confirming the existence of a significant

phenomenon under extreme circumstances. This choice is consistent with what Siggelkow

(2007) argues, that case studies are selected primarily because they are genuinely

interesting, novel, poorly understood, rare, deviant, unique and rarely observed. Jackson

(1989) states that often it is in “destabilised, tense situations” that the key to understanding

a phenomenon may be found. Flyvbjerg (2006:229) adds that “atypical or extreme cases

often reveal more information because they activate more actors and more basic

mechanisms in the situation studied.” The atypical or extreme case of the UQ-CCSG is not

a random outlier as interpreted by Gaussian statisticians, one to be overlooked or ignored;

but rather, it is to be seen as the manifestation of tension and connectivity. The richness of

data amplifies the contextual setting, the temporality of events and the actors’ perspective

(Weick, 2007). The selection of a single UIRC for this study is justified.

3.1.4 Starting Out – Drawing from the Natural Setting

The fieldwork was undertaken at a time when there was a growing public awareness of the

risks and benefits of Queensland’s burgeoning CSG industry, and there was political and

policy focus on supporting Australian innovation through UIE (R. Green, 2015; Mitchell &

Angus, 2016). In a much more general sense, growing concerns about the instability of the

natural world and the impact of humankind, notably around climate change and energy,

brings more immediate and intense interaction between science, industry, policy-makers

and impacted communities. CSG projects in Queensland were transitioning from the

construction to production phases. Other potential unconventional gas projects were being

considered in locations in other Australian states and overseas. Large numbers of

employees, contractors and the regulators (and nearby residents from Gladstone to Roma

and Toowoomba) were impacted by the changes within the projects (Everingham et al.,

2016; Everingham et al., 2014; Everingham et al., 2013; Leonard, McCrea, & Walton,

2016; McCrea, Walton, & Leonard, 2014, 2016; Rifkin, Uhlmann, Everingham, & May,

2014; Rifkin, Witt, Everingham, & Uhlmann, 2015a, 2015b; Trigger, Keenan, de Rijke, &

103

Rifkin, 2014; Uhlmann, Rifkin, Everingham, Head, & May, 2014; A. Walton, McCrea, &

Leonard, 2014a, 2014b, 2016; A. M. Walton, McCrea, Leonard, & Williams, 2013; S.

Walton & Boon, 2014; Richard Williams & Walton, 2013; Rachel Williams & Walton, 2014).

The global price of oil was falling, so there was intense pressure on the industry to improve

productivity in their construction and production processes.

3.1.5 Conducting reflective and reflexive research – Changing the initial research

design

Tracy (2010) describes how the resonance, credibility (internal validity), coherence and

significance of quality research will only be enhanced if researchers are honest about the

challenges and failures they encounter. Originally, the study identified ten unconventional

gas research programs located around the world, funded partly or wholly by the O&G

industry. The goal was to conduct a comparative case study, with the initial pilot research

to be conducted at the UQ-CCSG. On closer analysis, it became obvious the significant

contextual and structural differences between the cases – i.e., different universities,

different national higher education systems, and different relationships between energy

producers and communities – would make comparison difficult and potentially

meaningless.

This PhD study was first conceptualised as being within a larger research project on

research integrity. The broader project evolved into separate examinations of community

‘trust’ in the CSG industry, community perceptions of CSG and research institutions, and

other efforts after candidature commenced. So, this thesis contributes to a broader

program of research being undertaken around the UQ-CCSG. This research complements

and supports other research underway seeking to uncover the social relevance of scientific

organisations in CSG debates and the capacity of universities to contribute to public

debates about CSG. Furthermore, as the researcher is enrolled in the CSRM, the work is

expected to contribute to the sustainable development of the extractives sector. This thrust

is more apparent in Chapter 7 of this thesis, through reflecting on socially responsible UIE.

The original plan was overly ambitious given the time and financial constraints of a PhD

study. Upon closer examination, the UQ-CCSG was able to provide a depth of insights as

a single case study, albeit as viewed in the context of an overview study of documentation

104

from other unconventional gas UIRCs (as listed in Table 2). The access facilitated by the

staff to observations, meetings and documents was higher at the UQ-CCSG than initially

anticipated and allowed for more in-depth analysis. Through the initial stages, the

researcher became aware of the complexity of institutional and organisational factors

shaping research integrity governance. It would have been impossible to replicate the level

of access, time and resources in other locations; so, the research was condensed to a

single site, but the time in the field was extended to nearly two years.

It should be mentioned that choosing the UQ-CCSG as the site for the case-study, partially

on the basis of access and acceptability of the research project scope by the funding

agencies, means that the findings presented are likely to be conservative. The access to

the UIRC, continuing support for the project and the availability of data are potential

indicators that the staff of the UIRC have been ‘sensitised’ to the idea of organisational

social responsibilities more than others UIRCs. Socially irresponsible UIRCs would not

allow access or collection of data. In addition, the author, as an early career researcher, is

more likely to self-censor. This must be kept in mind when interpreting the findings.

It is difficult to sustain a model of the researcher as neutral observer in any situation, but

particularly hard when the research contributes to an unfolding technoscientific debate that

involves government, commercial, scientific and public interests. In various technoscientific

controversies, there have been assertions that researchers make claims to expertise and

neutrality without highlighting how intellectual independence has been co-opted by the

individual and organisational, financial and non-financial links to partisan agendas

(Glenna, Tooker, Welsh, & Ervin, 2015; G. C. Gray, 2013; Grudnoff, 2016). Neutrality can

be further compromised in feeding back to gatekeepers26 and participants, reports of

research findings and recommendations, as politically incorrect conclusions may be

omitted. For example, as this thesis was being prepared, more than one interviewee raised

concerns that this study would further legitimise industry-funded research and that the

university would enter into further UIE arrangements with fossil fuel producers. Thus, for

researchers working in arenas where there are technoscientific debates, it is important for

researchers to explicate their positions. The selection of a question, approach and of

26 Gatekeeper is a term used in social research to refer to people who arbitrate access to a role or setting within organisations.

105

underpinning research paradigms, is not just an intellectual choice, but is also a pragmatic

and politically-inspired act.

In terms of procedure, this study includes critical reflection of the researcher’s position and

how it shapes the research, and strategies to enhance the strengths and address or

overcome these limits. While totally mitigating the limitations is impossible, much can be

achieved through explicating shortcomings of access, understandings and biases. For

example, some of the strengths of the position of the researcher in this study were the long

periods in the field; the supervisor with intimate knowledge of the workings of the UQ-

CCSG; and another with intimacy of UQ and the socio-political context of Australian higher

education.

The researcher had a sense of curiosity and bewilderment as to what was going on in the

UQ-CCSG, given the unusual media attention around the Centre, UQ and the CSG

industry more generally. The advertised opportunity of an industry-funded scholarship to

complete a PhD in the social sciences as part of a multidisciplinary team exemplified how

UIE allows for research to be conducted in different ways. The process of undertaking the

literature review, as discussed in the previous chapter, provided an opportunity for a

former university administrator to examine how UIRCs operate from within, rather than

from the vantage point of a central administrative unit. When interpreting findings, it must

be kept in mind that the UQ-CCSG provided a partial scholarship for this researcher and

desk space, and some Centre staff provided access to meetings, were interviewed and

introduced other potential interviewees.

The UQ-CCSG receives substantial funding from the four key producers of unconventional

gas in Queensland, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. The initial scope of

this PhD, related publications and conference presentations were previewed by UQ-CCSG

participants, as required of UQ-CCSG researchers under the terms of the UQ-CCSG

research joint venture contract. This occurred through providing project proposals for the

Director and other members of the UQ-CCSG to approve, draft copies of potential

publications to preview, and research posters for UQ-CCSG research community

engagement events. In the context of working within and ostensibly for the UQ-CCSG, the

author, as an early career researcher, both consciously and unconsciously self-censored.

Her working within UQ-CCSG implicitly aligns this thesis with the organisational objectives

106

of the gatekeepers of the UQ-CCSG, and marginalises issues that are more important to

others, i.e., the student and staff involved in university sustainability activities or the Fossil

Free movement. That said, despite such a constraint, the continuing access to the UQ-

CCSG, enduring support for the study and the availability of data, indicate that the UQ-

CCSG staff have been supportive of examining the integrity of the Centre and of their

research projects.

The staff of the UQ-CCSG periodically reported on the progress of funded research

projects through expenditure, milestones and decision-gates.27 Thus, the researcher made

efforts to produce quantifiable research outputs, and communicate the details. For

example, the research outputs during the first 18 months of the candidature included

contributions to a report about Research Integrity circulated internally to UQ-CCSG

members, a co-authored paper for the Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal (Hardie & Smith

Devetak, 2014), a poster for the UQ-CCSG research forum, contribution to PhD

workshops at the University Industry Innovation Network (UIIN), International Association

for Business and Society (IABS) and the UQ Business School conferences, and provision

of research and administrative support for a roundtable of Australian State unconventional

gas regulators.

Yin and Eisenhardt recommend that extensive literature reviews are undertaken at the

start of the research to generate a theoretical framework which is then validated and

adjusted through empirical case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). In contrast, this

research involved an initial review of the UIE, and research integrity literature reviewing

was undertaken at the beginning of the thesis to sensitize the researcher to key themes

and boundaries around UIE and research integrity scholarship. Several months into the

initial data collection, it became obvious that notions of research integrity were inextricably

linked to participants’ expectations about how universities should engage with industry.

There was no consensus around how the UQ-CCSG stakeholders expected universities to

engage with industry partners, responsibilities to and impacts on society, or how the UQ-

CCSG should safeguard the integrity of its research. The researcher turned to the UIE

literature for guidance at this time, from which to draw a more precise analytical

framework.

27 Project management terminology and logics were used in the day-to-day operations of the UQ-CCSG and were embedded in how research activities and results were communicated with industry members of the UQ-CCSG.

107

Accordingly, the case of the UQ-CCSG presented in this thesis develops one account of

research integrity governance in a UIRC. The key features of research integrity

governance are identified, and links between the contributing factors are explored. The

research design that was finalised after time in the field, meets several of Yin’s (2014)

rationales for undertaking a single case study and generalising the findings to conceptual

models or theory. Following Alvesson and Sandberg (), this thesis is a critical case for

problematizing the theoretical assumptions about research integrity governance, and

considering whether or not some alternative or additional explanation is required to explain

research integrity governance in UIRCs.

3.2 Data Collection and Management

Sampling for qualitative research must be purposeful and phenomenological, that is,

documents and participants are deliberately selected to provide the most information-rich

data possible (Farquhar, 2012; Gerring, 2006). As in many case study approaches, a

broad range of people who have experienced the UQ-CCSG from various vantage points

were identified using ‘snowball’ or ‘chain’ sampling techniques. Patton (1990) described

numerous purposeful sampling strategies and discussions about sampling and sample

size to use, depending on whether the purpose of the study is to achieve maximum

variation, homogeneity, or extreme cases (such as elite or popular figures). As stated, the

purpose of this study is to examine the case of UIRC, where the integrity of its research is

being challenged. The study sought maximum variation of stakeholder to reveal the

multiple perspectives beyond the ‘normal suspects’ in UIE research, i.e., university

researchers and company employees.

As the study progressed, good exemplars of practices and vignettes of events were

identified to be included in the final thesis. The data collection strategy emphasised the

importance of relevance and reliability rather than quantity. Not all data has equal

credence, so the goal was to substantiate claims via various sources, i.e., via

organisational and government documents in the public domain and published scientific

research, which were regarded as potentially more reliable than individual’s interviews due

to the multi-stakeholder and peer-review mechanism embedded in the publication

processes. Although the research is a single case study, the data were collected from

multiple sites and include insights from research participants located in metropolitan and

108

regional areas, within the university, in CSG companies, and beyond. There were 16 semi-

structured interviews and the duration of the interviews varied from 40 to 180 minutes, with

most lasting around an hour. Some of the interviews were recorded, whereas other

interviews were not, at the request of the interviewee. In addition to the structured

interviews there were many conversations with people.

Table 10: Interview List

Who Interview

Understanding sought regarding the integrity of

industry-funded research

University Researchers 3 Nature of CSG research

University Managers / Administrators 2 Governance of CSG research

CSG industry employees 3 Participation in CSG research

CSG policy/makers and regulators 2 Use and demand for CSG research

UIE and Innovation specialists 2

Policy environment and comparison of UIE in the O&G

industry to other industries

Members of CSG impacted

communities 2

Nature of CSG industry impacts and

use/demand/participation in research

Anti - CSG researchers and activists 2 Criticism of CSG research

Total 16

Initially, the researcher was immersed within the publicly-available data: in research centre

websites, academic literature, policy and political statements, media reports and other

documents produced by the university and industry partners. The goal was to determine

the dimensions of research integrity governance in the organisation and its beliefs and

purposes as sanctioned by the directors and managers as representative of the

organisation (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). Direct observation of UQ-CCSG administration,

management and research activities allowed for experiential analysis as well as an

increasing understanding of UQ-CCSG structures, events, strategies and practices. It was

possible to gain an understanding of the work taking place under the auspices of the UQ-

CCSG, how people interact with each other, how they interpret their organisational

environment and the wider socio-political context in which industry-funded research takes

place. Nevertheless, it was difficult to reach conclusions about the effect that

organisational statements and policies have on organisational practices. That is both from

the perspective of the intentions and goals of personnel who author the communications,

and how they are received. For example, consider the University’s statement around

sustainability: “The University of Queensland is committed to embedding sustainability

across all aspects of learning, discovery, engagement and operations" (from website,

26/06/2018). However, the empirical data showed that there were few financial or other

109

incentives to embed sustainability values into developing research questions in the UQ-

CCSG. In all, this study uses five data types, common to post-positivist research, as

described by Farquhar (2012) and Yin (2012).

Table 11: Five Types of Data

Data Source Type Primary Functions Specific Types Examples

Observations

Capture practices in real

time

Observe meetings, ‘hot-

desk’ office

administration,

researcher events,

community engagement

activities, participation

classes

Queensland Science in

Parliament

presentations; UQ-CCSG

Strategic Advisory Board;

Australian Academy of

Technological Sciences

and Engineering

Unconventional Gas

Conference 2015

Document

Corroborate and

augment evidence from

other sources.

Websites, corporate

documents, UQ-CCSG

administrative and

governance

documentation, scientific

publications, media,

pamphlets from rallies,

speech notes,

Company and university

annual reports, blog

entries

Archives

Provide precise data to

clarify the chronology,

regulations and

government policy

Hansard, maps, survey

data, government policy

documents, on-line items

produced by the UQ-

CCSG, parliamentary

enquiries

‘Water Atlas’, Gasfields

Commission Reports

Interviews

Targeted: focus on

research integrity

Contextual: focus on

UIE, UQ, Queensland

CSG Industry

Semi-structured

interviews

University researchers

and administrators,

company employees

Conversations

Targeted: clarify

outstanding questions

Contextual: UIE, UQ,

Queensland CSG

Industry

Discussions (sometimes

taking notes)

University researchers

and administrators, CSG

company

representatives, CSG

regulators, science and

innovation policymakers,

UQ-CCSG research

consumers

The interviews and conversations added a human element to the research and gave

‘voice’ to various UQ-CCSG stakeholders, not just those directly involved in conducting

research e.g. university administrators, government employees and members of

communities affected by CSG production. These stakeholders ranged from researchers,

administrators, company representatives and regulators involved in the research projects,

to key external stakeholders, i.e., those outside the UQ-CCSG thought to possess greater

110

knowledge about UIE and research integrity than others may possess (Jarzabkowski,

Bednarek, & Lê, 2014). The researcher also observed multiple meetings, workshops and

events organised by research organisations, government agencies and industry

representatives. The UQ-CCSG website was a rich and relevant site for understanding

how CSG research is framed by institutional interests (academics, professional staff, CSG

partners), positioned within global debates, providing utility and service to the public,

facilitating deliberative engagement processes, and meeting expectations for

organisational transparency and accountability. The interweaving of multiple sources of

data is a key strength of the case study approach. Simultaneously, the large volume of

data made writing the thesis within the stipulated word limits difficult.

3.2.1 Data Management and Security

After the initial analytical framework about research integrity governance was devised, the

growing body of data about the UQ-CCSG was routinely categorised and saved. The data

were stored within types and themes (i.e., scientific literature, meeting documentation,

company publications, websites, field notes) on the researcher’s computer and back-ups

were saved onto the Cloud via Endpoint and Dropbox. Immersion in the data involved

multiple readings, to the point where the researcher was able to move to various locations

in the data to see links and patterns forming. This process was assisted by the

computerised text mining and content analysis software Leximancer (Version 4) – which is

discussed in more detail later.

3.2.2 Sequencing of Data Analysis

In this study, the initial tranche of fieldwork sensitized the researcher to the idea that

research integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG was more significant and complicated than

what was discussed in the UIE literature. The three large and intertwined analytical theory-

building processes of Bendassolli (2013) and Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2013) were

used to derive the Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance. That is, first the

researcher engaged closely with the UIE and research integrity literatures to list the

constructs or abstract ideas that describe the essential elements of the research integrity

phenomenon and how it operates within UIE, and then devised further questions. The key

sources of knowledge about research integrity were the World Research Integrity

conferences, literature and policy documents about RRI and RCR, as discussed in more

111

detail at Section 1.2.1. Second, the researcher reduced or condensed the findings from the

UIE literature through looking for links between the elements and classifying the extant

scholarship into categories, using Leximancer. Third, the researcher consolidated the

findings in the Provisional Model, to guide the collection, analysis and coding of the

empirical data from the UQ-CCSG.

To further develop and ratify the accuracy of the Provisional Model with empirical data,

various forms of data were collected, as shown in Table 11. Iterating between the

empirical data and the Provisional Model yielded a frequently shifting depiction of research

integrity governance in an industry-funded research centre. Additional constructs arose

from the empirical data from which theoretical propositions could be generated. The data

were analysed, for discrepant findings or for disconfirming evidence to combat

confirmatory bias and to avoid an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. The notion of

developing a conceptual model was guided by the theory-building evaluation matrix of

Corley and Gioia (2011). That is, this thesis is designed to advance the understanding of

research integrity incrementally, in contrast to providing a great revelation, and to be both

practically and scientifically useful. Throughout the process, multiple sources of data and

feedback from research participants on initial models were used to verify, alter, or refine

the provisional findings.

3.2.3 Use of Leximancer

Data gathered through interviews and documents were analysed using the computerised

text mining and content analysis software Leximancer (Version 4). Leximancer provides a

quantitative analysis of texts and a visual summary of the overarching thematic and

conceptual structures of textual data sets. Two forms of analysis occur, including semantic

analysis to identify the presence and frequency of concepts, and relational analysis to

investigate how concepts relate to each other. The software is a ‘concept discovery

system’ operating at the ‘almost fully automated end of the scale’ in terms of the variety of

existing CAQDAS (Kabanoff & Brown, 2008). One advantage of Leximancer is that it does

not require a priori identification of words and terms as it automatically processes texts to

identify words and groups of words that appear frequently. The algorithmic basis of

Leximancer lends itself to quantitative and positivistic approaches to data analysis.

112

Leximancer can produce two-dimensional concept maps based upon the co-occurrence

frequencies of the concepts identified in the text.

Referencing the terminology employed by Leximancer, the map displays clusters of

‘concepts’ denoted by differing sized dots representing the relative importance and the

relational pathways between them. Groups of ‘concepts’ highly related to each other can

be indicated visually as circles representing ‘themes’. ‘Themes’ are labelled by the highly

connected concepts that appear within. The relative importance of ‘themes’ within the

entire corpus is denoted by larger text labels, the circle’s relative size and a heat coded

colouring scheme. A network of connections between ‘concepts’ can be viewed, and these

pathways allow the user to explore connections between ‘concepts’. For example, a

concept emerging from the analysis of UIE literature in the past decade was the theme of

entrepreneurship, and the concepts include innovation policy, systems approach and the

university role for driving local and regional economic development.

The early strategy was to undertake an initial automatic analysis of the publications that

reveals 50 reoccurring words and the frequency of the relationship between the words. In

addition to the standard set of excluded ‘common’ words in Leximancer, e.g., and, the, not,

several general terms were removed including, but not limited to, www, pages, and

number. These words occur frequently but do not add meaning to the concept maps.

Additionally, singular and plural words were merged, e.g., university and universities; and

synonyms that appeared nearby in the semantic space, e.g., firm and company,

researcher and scientist, and nation and country were also merged.

Leximancer was used in three inter-related ways in this study. The first was to produce

concept maps based on the extant UIE literature, to identify key themes and trends, and to

view how research integrity was deliberated upon within the UIE scholarship. The second,

was to produce concept maps based on the SAB and TAG meeting notes to surface the

key themes and concepts being debated at the senior levels of the UQ-CCSG. The third

way of using Leximancer was to look for references in the corpus of documents: interview

transcripts, notes of conversations, marketing documents, websites and other documents,

for the presence and frequency of concepts of interest already identified through the

literature, e.g., the university’s role as a place for public debate, the university’s provision

113

of expert advice to public debates, research impact, research organisational identity,

transparency and accountability among others.

3.2.4 Reporting the Findings

The Provisional Model for Research Integrity Governance that animates this study

represents an understanding and accommodation of the practice and policy environments

in which the research is conducted, reported and potentially applied. In keeping with the

conventional benchmarks of ‘rigour’ in post-positivist research, this study accepts the

temporality of the explanations of research integrity. The research integrity governance

model discussed is partial, incomplete and in need of revision for differing operating

contexts. Similarly, one would need to investigate alternative or competing explanations for

the nature and significance of research integrity governance in other settings.

There is a sense that it is necessary to illuminate some of the implicit conceptualisations of

activities that the research participants are doing to safeguard the integrity of UQ-CCSG

research, i.e. research integrity governance, while balancing the degree of abstraction and

loss of contextual information. Short vignettes are used throughout the thesis to illustrate

notions by bringing them to life through describing the practices, events or incidents in

truthful and evocative ways. For example, stories from social researchers conducting

fieldwork in communities impacted by CSG activity. Despite their uniqueness, vignettes

are not unique or removed from the dynamics they illustrate, especially if they are

supported by various sources of data (Jarzabkowski et al., 2014).

Writing up qualitative research for an audience within the field of organisational

management continues to be challenging (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010; Gibbert et al., 2008;

Köhler, 2016; Pratt, 2009). In incorporating the recommendations of contemporary

scholars, this thesis attends to methodological transparency. Additionally, the researcher

has sought to provide sufficient information to enable assessment of whether the study

was conducted appropriately and whether there are sufficient links between the data and

the reported findings. The process of reporting focused on providing the audience with

clarity and consistency. The explanation of methods here has sought to identify elements

that attest to rigour and quality in the research through describing the mechanisms to

ensure the external validity, internal validity and construct validity.

114

3.3 Research Paradigm and Philosophical Foundations

The role of the researcher in this PhD is revealed in this chapter, along with the ways in

which the results will be presented and should be used. That role of the researcher

integrates the three fundamental elements of social research: the philosophical

perspective (the philosophical orientation of the researcher that guides practice); the

ontological (what exists in the human world that researchers can acquire knowledge

about); and the epistemological (how knowledge is created). Such criteria represent the

researcher’s perspective on fundamental issues, including the significance of the question,

the rationale for answering the question in the way chosen, the constituent elements of the

evidence and the initial stages of weighing those elements. In the current state of the field

of organisational management research, there is no consensus across the three

fundamental elements of organisational research (Avenier & Thomas, 2015; Boisot &

McKelvey, 2010). Thus, it is necessary to purposely ensure consistency between the three

elements and the two fundamental principles of methodological accountability, namely

reliability and validity. In practice, this is a significant undertaking as the researcher has

been a social scientist in the unfamiliar quantitative and commercial world of

unconventional gas research – an emerging global technoscientific phenomenon.

Whereas there is considerable consistency in the philosophical roots that underpin the

quantitative approaches that dominate management and unconventional gas research,

qualitative methods are informed by a wide range of different epistemological and

ontological traditions (Bluhm et al., 2011; Cassell, 2016). Qualitative research has no

boilerplate approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Pratt, 2009). It would be reasonable to pursue

the research objectives from either interpretivist or positivist viewpoints. However, as this

PhD is industry-funded, it is necessary to balance a practice-driven focus on finding

solutions to challenges with a research-driven focus for identifying and interpreting

patterns of social activity to contribute to an established field of research (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

The goal of developing conceptual models for UIE practitioners (who generally have

training in technical and commercial fields) and the background of the researcher drives

the study toward a post-positivist paradigm (Buchanan & Bryman, 2007). Researchers

working in a post-positivist paradigm often seek to characterise commonplace phenomena

and identify cause-effect linkages. This work thus has three parts. First, a focus on how

115

research integrity governance is conceptualised in the extant scholarship. Second, this

work identifies the similarities and differences between the extant scholarship and the

empirical case of the UQ-CCSG. Third, a normative management response is extended,

building on the findings from the scholarship and the empirical study of the UQ-CCSG.

3.3.1 Field of Organisational Management

Case studies are a valuable and reflexive approach to better understand the design and

functioning of organisations. This study emerges from the field of organisational

management due to the focus on understanding how a UIRC safeguards the integrity of its

industry-funded research during a public controversy. Other fields of management that

would also have relevance to the phenomenon, e.g. anthropology, economics or science,

technology and society (STS) were not drawn on because of the practical goals of the

study. Thus, this thesis draws on the intellectual heritage of the organisational

management field (2008; Farquhar, 2012; Kara, 2017). In some more established fields of

organisational management, researchers are able to refer to the reflective and systematic

examinations of the methodological approaches that are periodically published in their

fields, e.g. organisational identity (Ravasi & Canato, 2013) and organisational ethics

(McLeod, Payne, & Evert, 2016).

However, there were no published reviews of methods or literature in the emerging field of

UIE when preparation of this thesis began in 2013. That said, more recently, a sense of

methodological rigour, balance and delineation of the UIE field boundaries has been

brought to the field by literature and methodology reviews by Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa

(2015), Skute et al. (2017) and Cunningham et al. (2017). When this study commenced,

there were no routinely accepted methodological protocols to follow within the UIE field.

Thus, the methods for this study are based on Farquhar’s 2012 publication, ‘Case Study

Research for Business’, which draws together the insights from seminal methodological

texts. The work also draws on Yin (2014), Eisenhardt (1989), Siggelkow (2007), and

Flyvbjerg (2006) and several others who are strong proponents of post-positivist case

studies in organisational management studies, and have wide experience using this

research strategy to inform the research process.

116

Although the qualitative case study research approach continues to gain legitimacy within

organisational management scholarship, scholars are challenged by the stigma of ‘the

unwanted, red-headed stepchild of the field of management’ (Bluhm et al., 2011; Eby,

Hurst, & Butts, 2009). Scholars using qualitative case studies of single organisations as a

research approach may be answering interesting contemporary questions, but need to

face the consequences of accusations of bias and imprecision (Mats Alvesson &

Sandberg, Farquhar, 2012). Other than the examiners, a key audience group for the

findings of this thesis are the members of the UQ-CCSG. These people are trained and

employed in engineering, earth sciences or business functions, where there is not a

tradition of accepting the validity of socially-constructed or interpretive research. Thus, it

was a conscious decision to conduct and write up this thesis in post-positivist terms more

familiar to the intended audience.

Some researchers see case studies as only appropriate in the preliminary stages of

developing a new theory or field, when the relevant variables are still being identified and

explored (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). However, as Bluhm and colleagues note, both

qualitative and quantitative insights are needed to progress knowledge, and it is not

necessary to choose one over the other (2011). This practice-orientated study is the first to

consider what work is undertaken within UIRCs to ensure research integrity. Although the

exploratory nature of the study did not assert the need to use a qualitative case study

approach, it is germane.

The objective is not to search out instances of personal conflicts, poor leadership or bad

practice, nor to ignore them. Typically, the majority of organisational management

research is implicitly orientated towards a managerial perspective and the maintenance of

the organisational status quo (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). This thesis does not seek to overthrow

the governance structure of the UQ-CCSG, merely enhance it. Through gaining knowledge

of the mundane and changing business practices in their social contexts, decision-makers

can gain better control over their organisations (Humphrey & Scapens, 1996). The

researcher was familiar with the local idiosyncrasies of the university and country where

the research was undertaken. Though some social researchers warn against becoming

‘too close’ to the setting and thus not able to divest themselves of taken-for granted

understandings (Ybema & Kamsteeg, 2009), other researchers promote the notion of

studying familiar organisations e.g. universities, as it provides researchers with access, a

117

natural familiarity with the terminology, organisational structures and practices (Mats

Alvesson, 2009).

3.3.2 ‘For the field’, while surrounded by ‘in the field’ researchers

The positioning of the researcher within an organisation to observe events and routine

practices, conduct semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, and analyse documents

and objects, is a common approach previously used in UIE, as well as in other

organisational management case studies of single organisations or units (for example,

Boardman et al., 2013; Bramwell & Wolfe, 2008; Cunningham et al., 2017; Hagen, 2002;

Hens et al., 2017; Sanjay Jain & George, 2007).

When conducting UIE studies, researchers must consider whether the findings are ‘for the

field’ of research or ‘in the field.’ Commonly, social scientists conduct research ‘for the

academic field’, taking the standpoint that research is about attaining a deeper

understanding of the social dimensions of the phenomenon. This is achieved through

contributing to and developing theories and methods. Inherent to ‘for the field’ research is

the assumption that research is a special activity taking an objective stance, which is quite

different from highly-subjective ‘practice’. Social researchers objectively embrace the

diversity of perspectives of either the insiders – the UIE participants (emic) or the

observers of the phenomenon (etic). Both perspectives are important to progress

knowledge, but this research emphasises the perspectives of those directly involved in the

UQ-CCSG.

In contrast, it has been shown that social scientists in industry-driven research projects

frequently fulfil predefined roles and tasks ‘in the field/industry’. Their research draws on

the selection of Humanities and Social Science (HASS) approaches to research that have

been popularised in specific industry and policy arenas, i.e., environment and social

impact assessments and behavioural economics used in the O&G industry. This focus

results in a form of ‘purposive social science’, where people and things are categorised,

counted, grouped, and deliberately nudged in a manner that serves the goals of practical

problem-solving, policy making and political interests (Strengers, 2012). About the natural

sciences and technology research, social scientists typically work in the auxiliary role of

supporting and interpreting developments, rather than as a counterbalance to them. This

118

perspective can be parodied as exploring questions like, ‘What’s the market for our new

gadget? Or ‘How do we get people to accept the new technology?’ (Lowe, Phillipson, &

Wilkinson, 2013).

Social researchers from the enrolling institute of the PhD researcher, the Sustainable

Minerals Institute (SMI), largely approach research from this ‘in the field/industry’

perspective. In contrast to most SMI researchers, this researcher takes a purposeful ‘for

the field’ etic position to investigate a challenge identified by the UIRC members –

safeguarding research integrity. The researcher is awkwardly not affiliated with any

continuing research agenda of the CSRM or UQ-CCSG and potentially was perceived as

auditing or being critical of UQ-CCSG work practices. This role was a sensitivity for

research participants, as the SMI was reviewed and downsized in 2015, mirroring the

fortunes of the Australian extractive industries.

3.3.3 Post-Positivism in Action

To present a scholarly methodology for conducting a post-positivist case study, the first

step is to briefly summarise the basic assumptions underlying this philosophical stance,

occasionally comparing it to alternative approaches to clarify meanings. Post-positivism is

a confusing term. It does not represent one school of thought but draws together many

social scientists and philosophers that were strongly critical of Comte and the ‘logical

positivism’ of the Vienna circle. There are several hallmarks of post-positivist qualitative

research, including practicality, neutrality and equal opportunity, and accurate, verifiable

and consistent processes (Farquhar, 2012). Essentially, post-positivism does not reject the

ideas of the positivist scientific method, but instead incorporates notions of falsification

(Popper), fallibilsim (Kuhn), programmes of research (Lakatos) and methodological

pluralism (Feyerabend) (Mats Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Bradbury & Bergmann

Lichtenstein, 2000; Farquhar, 2012).

Post-positivism characterises the research design set out in Figure 5 and emphasizes the

key elements of 1) a contemporary and socially relevant research question; 2) the position

of the researcher as an observer, rather than experimenter; 3) the extension of existing

knowledge through the collection and analysis of empirical data; 4) strong methodological

accountability; and 5) findings that are stable and generalisable (Creswell, 2014;

119

Farquhar, 2012). Following epistemological norms for post-positivism, researcher

interaction with research participants is framed by the research question, and the

subjectivity managed through multiple data sources. The process of investigating the ‘truth’

of naturally-occurring phenomena within context, uses multiple sources of data to evade

errors and seeks rival explanations and falsifying hypotheses (Sandberg, 2005; Yin, 2014).

Thus, post-positivist research embodies the ideals of progressing towards objective truth

while acknowledging individuals’ imperfect knowledge (Mills, Harrison, Birks, & Franklin,

2017).

Linked to the notion of post-positivism is the idea that the UQ-CCSG is operating in a

condition of existential disruption, and that the conventional ways of thinking about

research integrity can no longer be taken for granted. Research integrity is being

challenged in unforeseeable ways, and practices of the past may not predict those of the

future. Current organisational management literature highlights the benefits of cycling

between inductive and deductive approaches in a wide range of contexts (Orton, 1997;

Visconti, 2010; Welch et al., 2013). Farquhar (2012,p25-26) defines deductive research as

where a theory or conceptual framework is developed and tested, or where you move from

a general law to a conclusion about a specific instance. In contrast, inductive research is

concerned with exploration and understanding. At first glance, these approaches to

generating theory appear mutually exclusive and are usually considered so in the

literature. However, many researchers who use case study methods acknowledge the

integration of deductive and inductive reasoning, albeit with different weightings and

timings (Bendassolli, 2013; Wrona, Ladwig, & Gunnesch, 2013). Some of the widely

adopted ‘inductive’ case research methodologies, c.f. Eisenhardt’s pursuit of similarities

and differences in empirical data (1989) and Yin’s ‘pattern finding’ (2014), combine

elements of induction and deduction. Both refer to a priori constructs determined by extant

theories and analytical frames, as well as the centrality of the empirical data.

This case study cycles between the empirical observations of the UQ-CCSG, the UIE

theories, the analytical framework of research integrity governance (elements,

relationships between the elements, boundaries, framing) and the evolving case itself, as

per Figure 6 (Dubois & Gadde, 2017). The author’s understanding of the phenomenon

changed and clarified throughout the study, and the thesis incorporates discussion of

some of the rapid advancements in knowledge of UIE (as discussed in Chapter Two) and

120

discussion of the dynamic operating environment of the UQ-CCSG (as discussed further in

Chapter Four). The analogical process, ‘cycling’, abduction or reproduction allows the

researcher to be faithful to the setting and participants, while being cognisant of current

theorising. Broader understandings of research integrity governance evolve, and new

ways of viewing the phenomenon are generated (Carlile & Christensen, 2004; Henry &

Foss, 2015; Wrona & Gunnesch, 2016). A continual interplay of data gathering, analysis

and interpretation produces the research results. It is the method used in real practice in

many case studies and is recommended as an innovative approach to theory-driven

empirical research (Mats Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; S. B. Meyer & Lunnay, 2013). The

strength of combining inductive and deductive methods comes from selectively taking

concepts from different theoretical traditions and adapting them to the data at hand, or

taking ideas from the data and attaching them to theoretical perspectives, “enriching those

theories as it goes along” (Langley, 1999:p708). The process of working between the

extant literature and the empirical data amplifies self-reflective and contextualised

approaches to generating and testing theories (Mats Alvesson & Sandberg,

Sandberg, 2005).

Figure 6: Iterating the Case Study

Systematic iterating, matching, changing

directions, setting boundaries

Analytical Framework

Empirical World

The Evolving Case

Theory

121

3.4 Ethics and Access

While the Institute’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval process for

student research sensitised the researcher to specific ethical issues, this study has shown

that ethical considerations are an ongoing process. The length of time in the field,

proximity to research subjects and the intensive research relationships tended to amplify

the fluidity of ethical decision-making (R. Taylor, 2015). Various ethical dilemmas were

dealt with ‘in the moment’ and reflexively to question the motivations, assumptions and

interests of the researcher. The sections below highlight this ongoing process in terms of

her gaining and maintaining access to the field. Research ethics in this case study centre

around the relationships between the researcher, participants and end-users. Ethical

issues specifically germane to this study include notions of 1) gatekeepers and

discretionary access, 2) voluntary participation and no deception of participants or

research end-users, 3) no psychological or social harm to participants or researcher, and

4) anonymity and confidentiality of participants.

3.4.1 Access and Layered Gatekeeper Permissions

All UIRCs have the right to permit or deny access to their space, personnel, information

and partners for research purposes, unless such information is already in the public

domain. As UIRCs operate under the auspices of commercial arrangements, they sit

outside of the public accountability mechanisms of government-funded research, i.e., the

Australian Research Council (ARC) and Grants Connection reporting mechanisms.

Relationships between the UQ-CCSG and their stakeholders were difficult to identify, hard

to access and complex in nature. That was particularly evident in comparison with, for

example, a university-industry R&D relationship for a new material or technology solution

for an existing business challenge. This challenge meant that the researcher chose to

spend a long time in the field to better understand research integrity organisational

structures; and policies about research integrity were implemented into daily activities. The

role of their senior leaders, who wield great power, is key to the success of the UIRC

(Betts & Santoro, 2011; Garrett-Jones, Turpin, & Diment, 2013). Thus, the Directors of the

SMI and UQ-CCSG are powerful and influential gatekeepers of the UQ-CCSG and its

administrative data.

122

Access to the UQ-CCSG was informally managed, and different from the kind of access

that is defined by written arrangements with conditions detailing when, where and how

data is to be collected. For example, the researcher was provided access to a desk in the

administration pod, which was arranged with no prior discussion about the duration of visit

or resources required. The access and the continuing support for the study given by the

Directors, allowed the researcher to foster rapport with senior staff, administrators,

researchers and students involved in the UQ-CCSG. Through continuing observations of

key strategic meetings, attending events and other activities, the researcher-maintained

access until it was time to exit the field to focus on writing the final version of this thesis.

Although the study was sponsored and supported by the UQ-CCSG, obtaining formal

interviews with the employees of large institutions such as energy producers and university

administration, proved to be difficult. Rather than seeking extensive time one-on-one with

them, informal conversations were held, from which much data was derived. Informal

conversations were used as there was little literature to describe research integrity within

the setting of industry-funded research. The observations and informal interviewing not

only built an understanding of the setting, but also served to build rapport with research

participants. The informal mode of communication meant that the participants did not have

to schedule time for an interviewee and it also seemed to allow participants to speak more

freely and openly.

3.4.2 Voluntary Participation

Laws, international and national, and codes of conduct protect the rights of research

participants to choose to participate in the project or withdraw from it at any time. How this

principle is enacted changes with the context. Research participants need to be aware of

their role in the research, of how to withdraw if they choose to do so, and how their data

will be used and presented (Farquhar, 2012). For some participants, social research into

organisations is perceived as synonymous with criticism, and there is potential reputational

risk in being involved (Bamber & Sappey, 2007). As the study evolved, it became obvious

that employees of universities seemed to be more orientated toward participating in this

study, in contrast to company and government employees.

123

It is proposed that due to the researcher’s initially inexact articulation of the topic and the

initial research approach, as well as the highly politized nature of CSG, some of the

potential interviewees approached, refused to speak; or if they did speak, they would not

go on the record. For those who agreed to participate, it proved difficult to explain what the

goals, methods and boundaries of the research were. The researcher perceived that some

appeared not to agree with or have experience of exploratory qualitative social science

research; indeed, they seemed to be equating it with participating in media interviews or

storytelling. For example, one international engineering HDR student debated vigorously

that this study was potentially bringing the UQ-CCSG into disrepute with current-and

future-industry funders and potential employers. By suggesting that there were concerns

with the integrity of the research, the researcher had challenged his expertise and

professionalism.

In the UQ-CCSG, where the Director is the gatekeeper and has great influence, special

care was taken to minimise any real or perceived pressures on stakeholders to contribute

to this study. For some potential interviewees, there appeared to be pragmatic reasons for

not engaging, including the issue of lack of time to contribute to this study, which sits

outside their core business; and how their performance is quantified and incentivised; or

the topic was commercially sensitive or did not sufficiently align with their responsibilities

for them to deem it relevant to discuss. Additionally, there was the sensitivity around what

data was commercially sensitive to the university or the firms, and junior staff did not want

to have the responsibility of seeking permission to discuss matters. For example, some

potential participants from the company and government suggested that research integrity

was the university’s responsibility, and they had no useful opinions or inputs.

After multiple rejections for interviews, the research approach moved from semi-formal

interviews to less obtrusive conversations. As the initial approval for the project from the

Institute’s ethics committee proposed multiple data collection mechanisms, the narrowing

scope was considered appropriate. Informality was possible as the researcher was a

middle-aged, former university staff member and access to the SAB and TAG meetings

had been agreed to by the Director. Most conversations were not recorded. Instead, notes

were made during and after the interactions, and they were reviewed afterward. The first

interviewees did not agree to being recorded. Thus, the approach moved to having

124

conversations, consent to which was achieved through discussions about the theme of

research integrity and about the researcher’s role.

At the beginning, a research consent form was offered to potential interviewees. However,

the feedback from the first six interviews was that it was time-consuming, overly

bureaucratic and constrictive. It could be said that some participants were potentially

misled through a lack of understanding of the study. That could be seen to be breaching

the principle of informed consent. However, this risk was minimised through having

multiple discussions with many participants over time and reporting findings as the study

evolved at various fora and in publications (which were previewed by UQ-CCSG staff prior

to publication). The research was not covert, and the researcher did not seek to deceive

any participants. The identity and objectives of the researcher were known to many and

were usually discussed multiple times during the conversations; information about the

project was also available through various platforms, e.g., UQ-CCSG research database,

SAB meeting papers and the SMI website. Some researchers suggest that seeking

participant consent for studies conducted within organisations is not merely a case of

consent and deceit. Instead, they suggest that depending upon the goals of the research

study, there are various levels of consent e.g., consent from someone who knows about

the goals of the study and consent from someone who does not (Roulet, Gill, Stenger, &

Gill, 2017).

3.4.3 Do no harm

In the Australian context, Human Research Ethnics Committees play a pivotal role in

ethical oversight of research involving humans and their activities. They are guided by the

standards articulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving

Humans (2007), the ‘National Statement’, issued by NHMRC.28 This research complies

with the University of Queensland’s interpretation of the National Statement.29 A key step

in this PhD process was to navigate the practicalities of gaining clearance from the Human

28 There are more than 200 HRECs in institutions and organisations across Australia, of which the University of Queensland is one. The National Statement was devised in 1999 by the NHMRC and the AVCC (Australian Vice Chancellors Committee) (now Universities Australia). It was revised in 2007 and updated in 2009. For more information see http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72 29 Low risk research proposals undertaken by research students did not, at the time, have to be reviewed by the HREC and could be approved at the faculty or institute level.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72

125

Research Ethnics Committees in the SMI, a requirement for research deemed to be a low

or negligible-risk endeavour. Ethics approval was received in March 2015.

As the research involved interviewing people, it was deemed sensible to incorporate the

ethical standards and guidelines produced by the pertinent organisations and professions.

Thus, the approved research design incorporates the key ethical elements highlighted in

the ‘National Code’ and reflects the central tenants of The Australian Sociological

Association (TASA) Ethical Guidelines 30 and the Australian Anthropological Society

(AAS)’s Code of Ethics. 31 The TASA and AAS Codes place importance on the

professional responsibilities for full disclosure, on reporting complete results including

negative findings, changes to the research design and shortcomings in the methodology.

The researcher and the HREC perceived that there would be increased ethical scrutiny of

this specific research, due to the nature of the topic, access to data and the potential

vulnerability of some participants, i.e., those who are subordinate members of a

hierarchical group. In the context of the UQ-CCSG, these potentially vulnerable groups

included research students, company contract employees in non-core areas like CSR and

government policy officers in regulatory agencies.

In many situations, the notion of research integrity is rooted in compliance and

reproducible experimental processes, and it is not particularly contentious. In contrast, this

research was conducted in a commercially and politically-sensitive arena, where there are

divisive opinions around the CSG industry, what CSG impacts should be examined and

UIE more generally. Discussions about research integrity in this context included debates

about normative ethics and the social responsibilities of individuals and organisations, as

well as workplace dynamics. The ongoing debates are indicated by the high-visibility of the

Fossil-free movement on the main UQ campus and the hosting of the ‘Challenging the

Privatised University’ conference from 23-24 November 2015. As this research

progressed, a small number of participants voiced concerns about why the author was

investigating ‘problems’ with research integrity and bringing undue attention to the UQ-

CCSG and university more broadly. There were many research staff in precarious

employment in the SMI and UQ-CCSG due to the increasing casualisation of university

employees, global downturn in the extractive industries and shift from construction to

30 A copy is available from their website http://www.tasa.org.au/about-tasa/ethical-guidelines/ 31 A copy is available from their website http://www.aas.asn.au/docs/AAS_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

http://www.tasa.org.au/about-tasa/ethical-guidelines/

http://www.aas.asn.au/docs/AAS_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

126

production in the domestic Queensland CSG industry. Thus, this study paid attention to

ensure no social or economic harm, i.e., embarrassment or conflict, was experienced by

the gatekeepers or the participants. This protection was pursued by the researcher.

3.4.4 Anonymity and Confidentiality

The design of this PhD research takes into consideration the highly politicised nature of

CSG and the goal of not causing any further discord between parties involved in the CSG

industry. Many people in and around the UQ-CCSG are working hard to develop

constructive collaborations between the industry and universities in a low-trust

environment (Everingham et al., 2016; Gillespie, Bond, Downs, & Staggs, 2016; Leonard

et al., 2016; Luke, den Exter, Boyd, Lloyd, & Roche, 2013; McCrea et al., 2016; Rifkin et

al., 2014; A. M. Walton et al., 2013). Responding to the need for intra- and inter-

organisational confidentiality was a concern, as the network of CSG experts was small

relative to the mining industry, and there was high mobility and connection between

government and industry representatives and the researchers (Espig & de Rijke, 2018;

Tolich, 2004).

The temporal dimension – over two years in the field – amplified the ethical issues faced

by snapshot studies, i.e., the researcher’s duration in the field provided numerous

opportunities for participants to be recognised. As cautioned by Taylor (2015), due to the

networked nature of the research participants and the long time in the field, it was

important not to accidently disclose the content of previous discussions other than to

confirm or clarify specifics, e.g., dates or locations. At the final writing stage, the evidence

used for drawing conclusions are presented in vignettes and themes, because direct

quotes might be traced back to individuals. Direct quotes are only used when they are

already in the public domain. Research participants were promised anonymity and that

helped to gain their trust and confidence, which seemed to make them more inclined to

reveal information and provide documents. The data were treated with sensitivity and

excluded from the study if there were potentially negative repercussions for organisations

or individuals (financial or personal).

Participants shared sensitive information during the fieldwork, including examples of

disorganisation in universities, companies and government agencies, the ineffectiveness

127

of some regulatory and policy frameworks, commercially-sensitive data and the lack of

personal integrity in some individuals. No comments have been attributed to individual

respondents in this thesis, and direct quotes have been kept to a minimum. That is

because of the need to respect the confidentiality of distinguished former leaders, senior

members of staff (past and present) who are known to each other and who might be

familiar with each other’s use of language. Thus, the research approach adopted for this

thesis offers many benefits, as well as generating unique and practical ethical challenges

around collecting data, reducing harm to participants, leaving the field and reporting

findings.


Some of the complicated ethical deliberations faced by scholars of UIE, and scholars

involved in UIE have been revealed in this chapter. At this point in UIE scholarship, it is

important to consider the question of how to evaluate qualitative research. This question is

the focus of debate in various fields including anthropology and sociology, and the applied

disciplines of social impact assessment and medicine. However, these debates seem not

to have permeated UIE or research integrity scholarship, or the technical disciplines

associated with this thesis, i.e., petroleum engineering or geology. Without engaging with

these debates, with reference to the nature and quality of UIE research, scholarship will

continue to be dominated by conceptual and quantitative studies.

The selection of the UQ-CCSG as the case study allowed exploration of O&G industry-

funded research in a controversial Australian context. At the same time, it presented

opportunities and constraints that necessitated a pragmatic approach. For example, the

study focused on a professional network of experts, whose research findings were not only

contributing to the reputation of O&G firms and their commercial goals, but the findings

also were also used to educate the public and to underpin legislation and policy-making.

The roles and resourcing of the four newly established regulatory and scientific

organisations focussed on CSG research, and the boundaries between them, had not

settled. The relationships between the UQ-CCSG and the three other research

organisations is discussed in further detail in the following chapter. When the author was in

the field collecting data for this study, the ways and means of production of scientific

knowledge about the impact of CSG industry on local communities and environments had

not stabilised, and there was palpable mistrust between various groups of researchers and

128

stakeholders (Espig & de Rijke, 2018; Gillespie et al., 2016). Typically, organisational

management research is implicitly orientated towards a managerial perspective and the

maintenance of the organisational status quo (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). This thesis reflects this

trend and seeks to better understand the structures and practices of the UQ-CCSG, rather

than criticize it.

This chapter charted the development of a case-study methodology firmly based in a

pragmatic post-positivist perspective using the qualitative methodology of organisational

management research. The nature of the research question, “How does an Australian

university-industry research centre funded by the O&G industry, safeguard and

demonstrate the integrity of its research?” and the significance of the socio-political

context, foreshadowed the value of undertaking an in-depth single case study analysis.

The topic seems worthy in the way it resonates with concerns about contemporary

Australian governments’ interests in supporting innovation and university management

interests in broadening and deepening engagement with external stakeholders. The

access to rich data, and the supervisory guidance from eminent social

researchers/practitioners in the fields of innovation and engagement, provided a strong

foundation to the study. This chapter has discussed elements that could be seen to

contribute to the credibility of the research and the saliency of the research approach. The

researcher trusts that it presents a solid basis for interpreting the findings discussed in the

following two chapters.

129

Part C: Findings

4 Chapter Four – The Case Study: Introducing the UQ-CCSG

4.1 Brief History of the Queensland CSG Industry

For many in Queensland, the narrative about O&G has been out of sight, out of mind.

Simply, coal is the major source of fuel for power generation and the largest export

commodity. But natural gas has a significant history in Queensland, with gas fuelling

electricity generation in Roma from 1961. In March 1969 Brisbane became the first capital

city with natural gas, which it got from the onshore Cooper Basin. However, the extraction

of CSG in Queensland for commercial exploitation has a relatively short history. As

expressed by Lawrence Springborg, former Queensland Minister for Resources, reflecting

on the late 1980s,

“Coal seam gas was only a twinkle in the resources sector eye at that stage … So it didn’t really occupy much of our time because it wasn’t a big issue, other than, we’ve got this and we know we’re going to do something with it one day when the technology is there.” (Keogh, 2013)

While Queensland’s large underground coal mining industry had faced the problems

associated with the safe extraction of coal from gaseous seams for over a century, the gas

was not conceived of as a valuable resource. Other than in a small number of instances

where attempts were made to capture and exploit the gas for use, it was simply vented as

part of the mining processes. The transformation of the Queensland CSG from a potential

safety hazard associated with shallow coal mines to a viable energy commodity, was

driven by changes in technological capability, commercial viability and political incentives

(Enever, Jeffrey, & Wold, 2014 ; Makki & van Vuuren, 2016).

In the context of ‘Queensland the Smart State’ and policy initiatives to stimulate the growth

of various industries during the early 2000s, the Queensland Government developed a

natural gas regime. The scheme stipulated that electricity retailers must source 15 percent

of their power from gas-fired sources and that the Government would support the proposal

for a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea. National and state trade and investment

government agency staff promoted the investment opportunities through their networks of

overseas contacts. Although the pipeline was scrapped in 2007 due to insufficient

customers, and the purchasing scheme was only in place from 2005 to 2013, the

130

government deemed it had been successful in stimulating the establishment of

Queensland’s CSG industry (Queensland Competition Authority, 2013). At that time, what

we now refer to as the CSG industry was referred to as the coal seam methane industry.

During the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and the run-up to the March 2009 election, the

Queensland Government announced the potential development of the first CSG-LNG

project, the QCLNG project, subject to State and Federal Government approvals. The

project was framed as an unprecedented opportunity for economic growth, jobs and

development (Kelly, 2011). Six months after the election of Australia’s first female Premier,

Anna Bligh, the Queensland Government released its first ‘Blueprint for Queensland’s LNG

Industry’ (Antonelli, Cappiello, & Pedrini, 2013).32 The Blueprint outlined the government’s

support for the industry and eight proposed liquified natural gas (LNG) projects. It also set

out several key policy initiatives to manage the industry. The Blueprint would lay the

groundwork for what was to become a rapid transformation of the state’s resources sector

and economic fortunes. The following year, Premier Bligh announced to Parliament that

she had received a letter from Catherine Tanna, Head of the Queensland Gas Company

(QGC) stating that the CSG-LNG project was commercially viable. The Premier stated,

At 5pm yesterday history was made—history for this state’s workforce, history for this state’s economy and its regions, history for our resources sector, and history for Queensland’s significant role as a global player in the evolution of a brand-new and exciting energy industry. ... That is history in the making and as one commentator described this morning it represents a seismic shift in the Queensland economy.

She went to say,

Full credit to this company. This company has done the hard yards. It is this company’s determination to be a player here that has made this happen, but we have been standing beside this company every step of the way and we intend to keep doing so. (Queensland Parliament, 2010)

Three CSG-LNG developments were approved between 2010 and 2011. The projects are

listed at Table 12. The rapid advent of the CSG industry obligated the Queensland and

Federal governments to gain a better understanding of the linkages between the rapidly

improving industrial extraction processes, the transnational gas markets, local peoples and

32 While Dr Carmen Lawrence (Premier of Western Australia, 1990–93) was Australia’s first female state premier. Anna Bligh was the first woman to be elected as a state premier (Premier of Queensland, 2007–12).

131

the land. This suggests that the industry had three distinct stages – investment and

approvals from 2008 to 2013, transition to production from 2013 to 2015, and from 2015

onwards, production. This accords with the timings of the CSG industry cycles and

fluctuations described elsewhere (Jerad A Ford, Verreynne, & Steen, 2016).

Table 12: Queensland CSG-LNG Developments33

Name

Australia Pacific LNG

(APLNG) – “the largest”

Queensland Curtis Island

LNG (QCLNG) – “the first”

Gladstone LNG Project

GLNG – ‘the local’

Capital

Expenditure AUD$ 24.7 billion AUD$23.7 billion AUD$21.6 billion

Owner/ Operator

Origin (37.5%) (upstream

operator)

Sinopec (25%)

ConocoPhillips (37.5%)

QGC (upstream operator)

formerly a BG Group

subsidiary, now Shell; China

National Offshore Oil

Corporation (CNOOC) (50%

Train #1); Tokyo Gas (2.5%

Train #2)

Santos (upstream

operator) (30%) Petronas

(27.5%)

Kogas (15%)

Total (27.5%)

Feedstock Surat and Bowen Basins Surat Basin Surat and Bowen Basins

Project Life 30 years 20 years 20 years

Scale

Development of gas fields

for up to 10 000 production

wells (maximum 5000 at

any one time) transmission

pipeline (450 km); LNG

export facility

Development of 6000

production wells; 27 field

compression facilities and 9

central processing facilities;

transmission pipelines (580

km); LNG export facility

Development of 2650

exploration and

production wells and

associated infrastructure;

transmission pipeline

(435 km)

International

Buyer Agreements

Sinopec International

Petroleum Exploration &

Production Corporation,

Kansai Electric

Chubu Electric, Quintero LNG,

CNOOC, Tokyo Gas Petronas, Kogas

Year Approved 2011 2010 2010

First Shipment December 2015 December 2014 September 2015

Production

9 million tonnes p.a. from

two trains34

8.5 million tonnes p.a. from two

trains

7.8 million tonnes p.a.

from two trains

The CSG resources belong to the State and are exploited by producers under a licence.

Vast areas of land are required for the extraction of CSG, and producers own enough land

to secure their operations and ‘lease’ from other landowners. The gasfields often co-exist

with the important agricultural sector in water-stressed areas. The Gasfields Commission

Queensland reports that 27.4 million hectares (15% of Queensland) is under petroleum

33 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25612 / http://choosebrisbane.com.au/invest/brisbane-economic-series/articles/energy-mega-merger-analysis / https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=AUS / https://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/operation/australian-lng-projects/ / https://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/operation/australian-lng-projects/ / https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf / http://www.conocophillips.com/news-media/story/australia-pacific-lng-and-sinopec-sign-binding-agreements-for-lng-supply-and-15-equity-interest/ 34 An LNG train is a liquefied natural gas plant's liquefaction and purification facility.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25612

http://choosebrisbane.com.au/invest/brisbane-economic-series/articles/energy-mega-merger-analysis

http://choosebrisbane.com.au/invest/brisbane-economic-series/articles/energy-mega-merger-analysis

https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=AUS

https://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/operation/australian-lng-projects/




https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf%20/

https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf%20/

http://www.conocophillips.com/news-media/story/australia-pacific-lng-and-sinopec-sign-binding-agreements-for-lng-supply-and-15-equity-interest/

http://www.conocophillips.com/news-media/story/australia-pacific-lng-and-sinopec-sign-binding-agreements-for-lng-supply-and-15-equity-interest/

132

and gas tenure, 24.6 million hectares for exploration leases and 2.8 million hectares for

petroleum leases. The actual surface production footprint being 0.1% of Queensland’s

land mass (Gasfields Commission Queensland, n.d.-a). Typical infrastructure needed

includes access roads, wells, pipelines, water storage, treatment facilities, site offices and

gas processing plants. Producers expect to drill approximately 40,000 wells across

Queensland, ensuring that the industry will continue to be a key contributor to the State

economy for decades to come. At 30 June 2018, the Queensland Government reported

over 6300 wells had already been drilled with 80 percent in the Surat Basin and 20 percent

in the Bowen Basin. Most wells involved some level of flaring or venting and there were

over 25,000 megalitres of water (10,000 Olympic swimming pools) produced between

January and June 2018.35

As these projects were the world’s first CSG to LNG projects and Queensland’s first CSG,

there was limited local knowledge about the commercial and organisational dynamics of

such projects. It was difficult from the outset to understand the commercial

interdependencies of financiers, producers and users, service companies, suppliers,

contractors and consultants, as Queensland had previously had little engagement with the

global O&G industry. This is in contrast to traditional O&G producing nations, e.g. the U.S,

Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, U.K and Norway that have well developed links between

O&G industry players, government regulators, education institutions and other actors. The

frequent alliances, mergers and acquisitions made the network more ambiguous for

Queensland business and industry regulators to comprehend and penetrate the complexity

of the supply chains (Ford et Al, 2014). Similar in levels of complexity, responsibilities for

the evolving and adaptive legal frameworks surrounding companies’ land access and

social and environmental impacts are split between national and state government

agencies.

The legal and regulatory frameworks are difficult to map and have inherent contradictions

(Boulle, Hunter, Weir, & Curnow, 2014). The CSG footprint does not fit neatly within

35 Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland Government, Petroleum and gas production and reserve statistics available at https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/eab09d04-05a8-41c0-92bf-02255e4d7db8/resource/9746212a-e0c6-484d-95ad-b2be1c46027d and a description of megalitres https://www.upadrygully.com.au/sites/upadrygully.com.au/files/assets/documents/FINAL%20A4%20fact%20sheet%20education_what%20is%20a%20megalitre.pdf and http://www.nswic.org.au/pdf/fact_sheets/USEFUL%20WATER%20COMPARISONS.pdf

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/eab09d04-05a8-41c0-92bf-02255e4d7db8/resource/9746212a-e0c6-484d-95ad-b2be1c46027d

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/eab09d04-05a8-41c0-92bf-02255e4d7db8/resource/9746212a-e0c6-484d-95ad-b2be1c46027d

https://www.upadrygully.com.au/sites/upadrygully.com.au/files/assets/documents/FINAL%20A4%20fact%20sheet%20education_what%20is%20a%20megalitre.pdf

https://www.upadrygully.com.au/sites/upadrygully.com.au/files/assets/documents/FINAL%20A4%20fact%20sheet%20education_what%20is%20a%20megalitre.pdf

http://www.nswic.org.au/pdf/fact_sheets/USEFUL%20WATER%20COMPARISONS.pdf

133

legislated boundaries of local government, mining and petroleum tenures, regional

economic development zones, water catchment areas, agricultural zones, national parks,

or of cultural heritage and native title lands, and cannot be neatly contained within

Queensland state boundaries. The difficulty in mapping and assigning responsibilities for

decision-making and oversight of the CSG industry was exacerbated as the State

Government did not fund the continued monitoring of the CSG industry as stipulated in its

own CSG blueprint (Willacy, 2017). Unlike the US, where shale gas extraction frequently

occurs in close proximity to sizeable communities, CSG development is occurring in areas

with low populations – recently estimated to comprise of only 45,000 individuals (Rifkin et

al., 2014). The majority of Queenslanders (population of approximately 5,000,000 people)

are not directly impacted by the industry but are recipients of the financial benefits derived

from the payment of production royalties to the State government. However, for those

landholders who are directly impacted by CSG production on their land, the engagement

processes can be time- and resource-consuming and in some cases, life-changing. The is

demonstrated by the 5,700 Land Access Agreements which Queensland landholders have

negotiated with the CSG firms up to 30 June 2017 (Gasfields Commission Queensland,

n.d.-b). Like many other natural resource developments, the advantages and

disadvantages are not shared across the population equally.

During the preparation for this study, the organisations at Appendix 2 were identified as

having interests in the CSG industry and thus, potentially, in CSG research outputs. As the

study progressed, the author became aware of a broad range of actors involved in the

CSG industry including but not limited to the producers, explorers, financiers, contractors

and suppliers, international and domestic customers, consultants, lawyers, industry

associations, professional organisations, unions, non-government organisations, religious

organisations, media, government agencies, local governments, landholders and others.

The diverse group of dynamic actors that navigate the geological and social terrains can

be understood to be part of a complex network in which local events, resources and

communities are linked to global contexts such as energy markets and climate debates.

Theoretically, the organisations listed in the table could appear in multiple categories as

hybrid and boundary organisations, with multiple roles across the CSG industry, but for the

sake of simplicity, they are only listed once. The table at Appendix 2 demonstrates the

varied interests in Queensland CSG.

134

Hydraulic fracturing, fracking or stimulation, as it is variously referred to, is not an industrial

process isolated from society. Fracking has captured the attention of the media, public,

governments and researchers and polarised viewpoints around two coalitions of interest:

those who are for and those who are against the extraction of unconventional gas. For

example, the makers of the Bentley Effect (a film about a CSG community in New South

Wales, Australia) have dubbed the extensive community protests about fracking and the

CSG industry the biggest non-violent ‘Eureka Stockade’ movement of our time, and one of

the fastest growing social movements ever witnessed in Australia.

The CSG industry is experiencing disagreements between national and state

governments, divisions between State governments (e.g. some support CSG while others

have put in place bans), community suspicion and the usual uncertainties inherent in the

production processes. CSG is a classic case of where the technology gets the science to

come along behind it, rather than being a more common and simplistically understood

linear process whereby science leads to technology which leads to products (Riordan &

Hoddeson, 1997). Like other governments around the world, the Queensland State and

Australian governments have committed to ‘evidence-based’ approaches to regulating the

proposed and operating CSG developments. As such, there have been a series of

reviews, public consultations, parliamentary enquiries and other examinations of the

science around CSG, both prior to commencement of extraction, and continuing,

concerning evaluation of the industry’s impact on the environment and society (Kentish &

Beck, 2014; Towler et al., 2016).

4.2 Emergence of CSG research agendas

CSG is a multifaceted technoscientific controversy of global proportions. The energy

released from hydrocarbons has contributed to the great accomplishments and failures of

our times. For many people, standards of living have never been higher; but on the

flipside, the world we live in is facing irreversible ecological degradation, pollution,

overcrowding and war driven by greed for of resource ownership (Steffen et al., 2015).It is

a resource constrained world, and our dependence on the cheap and plentiful

conventional modes of extracting gas is no longer possible (International Energy Agency,

2011 ). The ever-increasing demand for energy, and hydrocarbons more specifically,

guarantees there is a vibrant exchange of knowledge about the technical and human

dimensions of energy production (International Energy Agency, 2011 2016). As

135

organisations around the world grapple with climate change mitigation, there is one

hydrocarbon that is an increasingly important part of the global energy mix – that is,

natural gas. The IEA predicts that the demand for gas will outstrip that for other

hydrocarbons in the coming years, even though gas is struggling to stabilise its position

between coal and renewables in the global energy market mix. Extracting gas and

transporting it to those who desire it, is a highly technical endeavour, and O&G firms are

funding research at universities around the world to assist them (King, 2012; Uddameri et

al., 2015).

Since it commenced, the velocity and intensity of the Queensland CSG industry – the

scope, size and impact of the industry– has driven a research agenda shared across

various scientific organisations. Improved knowledge of the technical and economic

aspects of CSG s needed to drive the productivity and efficiencies of the ‘down-hole’ and

other upstream operations. While it is understood that most R&D for the O&G sector is

undertaken by the service companies and consultants, several authors stress that

academic research has made significant contributions to the progress of the sector (Mason

& Stoilkova, 2012; Perrons, 2014). Key contributions have come from the basic and

applied sciences (chemistry, geosciences, engineering, computing biology) (Azevedo

Ferreira & Rezende Ramos, 2015; Cumbers, Mackinnon, & Chapman, 2003; Isaksen &

Karlsen, 2010; Salter & Martin, 2001; Woiceshyn & Eriksson, 2014).

In the case of the emerging Queensland CSG industry, proponents, opponents,

participants and regulators have all sought to increase the knowledge base about the

characteristics of the resource, the industrial processes and the impacts of the industry on

the land and people. As developments cycle through the pre-approval, construction and

production phases, stakeholders’ knowledge requirements change, informing research

agendas. Competitive and collaborative forces shape the CSG research enterprise, as it

responds to a multiplicity of interests, both explicit and implicit. There were lots of technical

and commercial uncertainties inherent in Queensland’s CSG development. As the largest

CSG development in the world, industry and government actors were not only interested in

assuring its progress but also in capturing the learnings to be shared with actors involved

in future developments (including the potential export of know-how and technology). This

was illustrated by Austrade and Trade and Investment Queensland, Australia and

Queensland’s export facilitation agencies respectively, starting to market Australia’s

136

technical capabilities (products, services and training) in CSG. However, as it was the

world’s first CSG-LNG development, knowledge of shale and CSG developments in other

parts of the world, were only partially relevant to the Queensland experience, or not at all.

As the scientists involved in the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) review

of unconventional gas noted, early CSG policy arena identified a lack of ‘reliable

information’ and ‘scientific evidence’ as a key feature (Cook et al., 2013). Indeed, the need

for scientific knowledge to underpin the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks

for the Queensland’s nascent CSG industry and to promote public confidence in the

industry was highlighted in the IEA’s ‘Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas’ (2012).

As global interest in CSG as a key energy source, researchers from a variety of disciplines

contribute to CSG research. For example, the American Association of Petroleum

Geologists reported in their Coalbed Methane Committee Report in May 2019, that the

interest in CSG or CBM as they refer to it, is indicated by the more than 80 technical

papers published in 2018 (2019). The interest is CSG by the research community is further

illustrated by the more than 160 articles related to the socio-cultural aspect of the

Queensland CSG industry which are included in the UQ-CCSG website (UQ-CCSG, n.d.-

b) From the legal perspective, the Queensland CSG industry regulatory framework has

evolved rapidly and agency staff were actively seeking scientific evidence on which to

base decisions. As the industry commenced, it operated within the jurisdiction of the

existing Petroleum Act and then moved to more specific legislation and purpose-designed

institutions. The production of CSG in Queensland has increased 100-fold in less than

twenty years, and it has been supported by the ‘go grow’, ‘adaptive management’ and

‘learning by doing’ approaches of the Queensland Government (I. Cronshaw & R. Q.

Grafton, 2016). Currently, at least eleven pieces of legislation regulate the industry, run by

various State Government departments (Gasfields Commission Queensland, 2016).

Individual researchers or research centres are contributing to the policy and legislative

development processes, from formalised contract research to experts participating in

policy discussions.

Although many researchers would suggest that the politicisation of CSG research makes it

too problematic an arena to work in, the plea for more research into the social and

environmental impacts of CSG and into how to improve the technical efficiency of the

industry, comes from several quarters. The sentiment is illustrated by an Australian

137

Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) report examining unconventional gas industries

in Australia, which restated the need for knowledge and highlighted the need to

demonstrate the integrity of the research (Cook et al., 2013). Multiple stakeholders need to

be assured of the veracity and provenance of the research, and to understand the goals

and values of the funders and researchers. The ACOLA report identified that there are no

profound gaps in technological or scientific knowledge relating to CSG exploration and

production. However, there are ‘research requirements’, necessary to ensure confidence

among the regulators, community and industry. These include amassing baseline data

against which to measure change and garnering knowledge to predict change before it

happens. The report also suggests using data and knowledge together to effectively deal

with a minor impact before it has significant consequences and to ensure the knowledge

shapes the regulatory systems and is shared publicly. At the time the ACOLA report was

being prepared, several research centres were established, including the UQ-CCSG.

Others such as the bid for a Sedimentary Basins CRC were considered but did not

proceed.

Government-funded research schemes contributed substantially to the initial research

efforts that stimulated the uptake of unconventional gas extraction methods and the rapid

growth of the sector around the world. Various government agencies and the industry

continue to fund technical and non-technical unconventional gas research (Enever et al.,

2014 ; Z. Wang & Krupnick, 2013). A search on the Web of Science database (conducted

on 2 November 2016) for unconventional gas research, suggests that most scholarly

research conducted at universities is funded by governments through national funding

agencies such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the National

Science Foundation in the U.S. The US government made substantial contributions to the

development of the unconventional gas industry and more recently other national agencies

have started to contribute e.g. the Research for Partnership to Secure Energy for America

in the US, the National Energy Resources Australia (NERA), the CRC programs in

Australia and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Centre for Doctoral

Training (CDT) in Oil & Gas in the UK (Z. Wang & Krupnick, 2013).

In addition to national research agencies, international oil companies or exploration and

production (E&P) firms or ‘producers’ such as Shell, TOTAL and Chevron, and service

companies such as ConocoPhillips, also fund scholarly research. Beyazay (2016)

138

suggests that all the international oil companies and international service companies have

research R&D units to coordinate networks of partnerships with other firms in the O&G

industry, universities, consultants and other research providers. Historically the producers

were larger investors in R&D in comparison to international service companies and

focussed their efforts on examining and evaluating new concepts in exploration and

production techniques. More commonly, the scientific questions are general, open-ended

and not necessarily directly linked to current O&G activities. Service companies on the

other hand, tend to work with the producers and researchers to translate new concepts

into practice – through the development of new materials, equipment and processes.

Three producers, Shell, TOTAL and ConocoPhillips, are key underwriters of LNG projects

in Queensland. Nevertheless, a review of the websites of ‘big oil’ companies operating in

Australia suggested that none of the companies had strategic R&D partnerships with

Australian universities.36 For example, Shell reports that it has research partnerships with

Delft University, China University of Petroleum, Imperial College and the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT) for a variety of projects, among which are unconventional

gas related activities that include system and process optimisation through enhanced

recovery, implementation of new technologies and materials (Shell, No date).

While universities promote their ties with industry, UIRCs are not necessarily reported by

the participating firms in their promotional materials. Desktop research identified the twelve

unconventional gas UIRCs listed at Table 2 from university websites – many of these were

not acknowledged on company websites. Unlike many of the research partnerships in this

space where the relationship is directly between E&P or service firms and universities, the

UQ-CCSG is a partnership established between one university and multiple CSG-LNG

project joint-ventures. The project joint ventures are temporary organisations created to

implement specific projects, within the context of the parent companies’ global portfolios.

The impact of the organisational complexity, fragility and organisational goals associated

with the CSG-LNG project cycle on the UQ-CCSG structures and practices, is discussed in

more detail in Chapter Five.

36 ‘Big oil’ is used in several senses including for the size, influence and integrated nature of the major companies, that are ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total. The term ‘big oil’ is used to differentiate the private interests from the NOCs and is frequently used in a prerogative sense to find fault with the concentration of economic power and political influence in a small number of companies.

139

In addition to the research needs of the firms and the government regulators, the impacted

communities also have interests in CSG research. Across Australia, as in several other

parts of the world, communities have expressed concern about the level of risk CSG

presents to water and soil quality, employees, community and human health more broadly,

to terrestrial biodiversity and more broadly about its contribution to increased CO2

emissions during the extraction process (de Rijke, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; de Rijke, Munro,

& Zurita, 2016; Espig & de Rijke, 2016a, 2016b; Everingham et al., 2016; Everingham et

al., 2014; Everingham et al., 2013; Mercer, de Rijke, & Dressler, 2014; Navi, Skelly, Taulis,

& Nasiri, 2015; Alan Randall, 2012; Alan Randall, 2015; Rifkin et al., 2014; Rifkin et al.,

2015a, 2015b; Thomas, 2015; Towler et al., 2016; Trigger et al., 2014; Uhlmann et al.,

2014; Rachel Williams & Walton, 2014). As an illustration, the material and potential

impact of the CSG industry on the Australian groundwater and surface water systems

drove investigations from various organisations at the national level, including but not

limited to ISEC, CSIRO, the Chief Scientist; the Department of Natural Resources and

Mines and the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment37 at the state level; the ACOLA,

several universities and a number of consulting firms.

Since CSG developments commenced, there has been a decade-long public debate about

the industry’s viability and impact. Local Queensland researchers traced media coverage

of CSG in the Australian print media, and showed that coverage of the industry was

highest in the media in early 2008 (Mitchell & Angus, 2016). The coincided with a raft of

legislative and policy changes and public announcements about many proposed CSG-

LNG related projects (Department of Employment Economic Development and Innovation,

2009). The media generally showed that there are two possible outcomes from the public

debates about CSG. The first outcome is the government enacts an array of precautionary

approaches which curtails or postpones the establishment of the industry. This results in

the bans and moratoria seen in other Australian States and international jurisdictions. The

other outcome is that the CSG development proceeds, and the government, industry and

other actors work together to quantify the benefits of the development and clarify the

uncertainties and mitigate the risks. After promoting the potential for a CSG industry, the

37 OGIA is completely funded through an annual industry levy. The majority of the levy is paid by CSG producers in the Surat Basin and within the Surat Cumulative Management Area (an area covering petroleum leases in the Surat and southern Bowen Basins).

140

Queensland Government had bipartisan support for the second route (Witt, Kelemen,

Schultz, & Vivoda, 2018). When the State agenda moves from evaluating whether there

should be a CSG industry to how to balance the needs of the industry with those of other

actors, the questions they ask of researchers shift. The research agenda moves towards

impact minimisation, how the CSG industry can co-exist with other interests, how to

govern and regulate the industry and what learning can be commercialised.

The Queensland CSG industry is a story about a nascent industry seeking its social

licence to operate within an evolving regulation framework which is seeking to calculate

and mitigate the risks as they emerge. As the developments are the first CSG-LNG

developments in the world, there are multiple uncertainties and few experts in industry,

regulatory agencies or research organisations. As CSG ‘experts’ emerged, the sharing of

non-expert knowledge grew too. From 2008 the anti-unconventional gas movement gained

momentum and media attention in the CSG industry intensified. The CSG industry grew

into a costly and expansive export-focussed industry drawn into debates ranging from

climate change and energy choices to local livelihoods and the effects of the industrial

processes on human and animal health, water use and land access in the affected areas.

Some US energy researchers refer to these areas as ‘sacrifice zones’ and this term has

been appropriated by some in Australia. ‘Sacrifice zones’ are places of energy production

where some individuals and communities pay higher premiums to ensure the greater

whole may experience better access to energy, thus securing the benefits of national

energy security at the expense of some individuals’ wellbeing (Hernández, 2015; D.

Taylor, 2014).38 The heightened media attention and politicisation of CSG sensitised

researchers and university leaders to the idea that UQ-CCSG research outputs, once in

the public domain, would be scrutinised and potentially used to support both opponents

and proponents of the CSG industry (Nisbet, 2009).

Some participants in this study raised the fundamental issue about what knowledge was

needed for the CSG industry to proceed and who should pay for it, i.e., government or

companies. In many established Australian industries, e.g., coal and various agricultural

38 The ‘sacrifice zone’ is a notion that is increasingly used in the energy, resources and industry research and encompasses the notion that some communities or localities in the pursuit of progress for the greater humanity. A film about the Santos CSG project at Narrabri being made in 2014-2017 has the title Sacrifice Zone - http://www.sacrificezone.com.au/ .

http://www.sacrificezone.com.au/

141

commodities, there are ‘user-pay’ industry levy mechanisms for producers to pay for R&D

e.g. the Australian Coal Industry’s Research Program39 and the Rural Research and

Development Corporations 40. In contrast, the unconventional gas industry was incubated

in the US by the national government’s aiming to secure national sources of energy

through hundreds of millions of dollars of direct research grants and tax incentives (Z.

Wang & Krupnick, 2013; Zeid & Lee, 2016). The unconventional gas industry (located in

shale rocks rather coal seams) industry grew rapidly within a context of a high market

demand, well-developed distribution networks in some places, supply chain inputs

including skills, capital and technology and reliable geological and hydrological data. The

U.S. Government estimates that the natural gas and oil supply industry, including

producers and service companies, spent around USD$20 billion (USD $9.6 billion by

operators, USD $10.7 billion by service companies) on research in the decade between

1997 and 2006 (Department Accountability Office, 2008). The major technology

breakthroughs are seismic exploration, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (King,

2012)

However, as the CSG industry became established in Queensland, there was

comparatively little Federal or State government investment for researching CSG

resources, the industrial processes, or the potential impacts of the industry on the land and

people. While the development approval processes required the project proponents to

prepare environmental impact statements evaluating the risks and benefits of production

for local communities and the environment, these were not necessarily independently

verified by peer-reviewed scientific research. The lack of direct government funding for

CSG research ensured there was demand for knowledge, and multiple opportunities for

research partnerships between government, industry and universities to emerge.

While the gap in government-directed research opened a space for industry-funded

research in this arena, it rapidly became apparent that there were multiple concerns about

the governance of research practices. Scholars of science and society and organisations

have identified that partnerships, and governance of partnerships, tend to be more

complex, active and demanding of explication to multiple groups of stakeholders when

engaging with controversial industries like CSG (Ye Cai, Jo, & Pan, 2012; Reast, Maon,

39 For more information about the Australian Coal Industry’s Research Program see https://acarp.com.au/ 40 For more information about the Rural Research and Development Corporations see http://www.ruralrdc.com.au/

https://acarp.com.au/

http://www.ruralrdc.com.au/

142

Lindgreen, & Vanhamme, 2013; Sharman, 2015). The notion that good governance of UIE

is crucial, particularly with the CGS sectors, is also supported by scholars, represented by

ACOLA. The ACOLA report into unconventional gas identified,

Many people are distrustful of the information provided by industry and government also from research and academic bodies where there is a perceived close financial relationship with industry. Communities are more likely to accept information as credible if it comes from a source such as CSIRO or universities but only if they are perceived to be truly independent.”(Cook et al., 2013: p26)

The need for good governance in industry-funded research in the CSG arena justifies the

importance and contribution of this study.

4.2.1 Cooperation and Competition in Australian CSG research

Around the same time that the UQ-CCSG was established, Australia’s independent

agency responsible for scientific research, CSIRO, established the Gas Industry Social

and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). This research centre was initially

established as a research partnership between CSIRO and industry, but more recently

was expanded to include arrangements with Federal and State Government agencies. In

addition to the UQ-CCSG and the GISERA, the Federal government established an

independent experts committee in November 2011, the Interim (then independent) Expert

Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC).

The government of the day wanted scientific evidence to build confidence in CSG and

large coal mining developments.

Then in July 2013, the Queensland Government established an independent statutory

body, the Queensland Gasfields Commission, to manage the co-existence of the CSG

industry with land holders, rural communities and other industries, and one of their

functions was to conduct research. Membership of the research organisations sometimes

overlapped, i.e., a Gasfields Commissioner was concurrently an employee of the industry

group, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) and a

member of the UQ-CCSG; so, too, did the research objectives, i.e., multiple ‘social’

researchers from different research organisations met on the street in the small town of

Miles in the gasfields, 340 kilometres from Brisbane, having potentially sought to interview

similar people. Although the Queensland Government and Australian governments

granted approval for the first CSG-LNG project (QCLNG) in the second half of 2010, and

143

the BG Group made their final investment decision (FID), the Australian governments,

Federal and State, did not start to pursue coordinated research activities about the

potential impact of the CSG industry on the people and land until the following year (See

Table 13).

This occurred at a time when media interest in the CSG industry was intense and already

polarised (Mitchell & Angus, 2016). In addition to the four key research organisations,

other research organisations operate. As they were peripheral to the daily operations of

the UQ-CCSG they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this work. One of these, the

University College London School of Energy and Resources Australia, opened its first

overseas campus in Adelaide. The partnership between the South Australian government,

Santos and the University College London operated from 2008 to 2015. The research

directory on the UQ-CCSG website lists various university-based and private research

groups conducting research on CSG (UQ-CCSG, n.d.-a). In addition, there have been

references in technical publications to scholars being affiliated with a ‘Coal Seam Gas

Research Institute’ at James Cook University, but a search of the university corporate

website found no reference to this.

Table 13: Research Organisations established to examine the Queensland CSG Industry

Research

Organisation UQ-CCSG GISERA41 IESC

Gasfields

Commission

Location

University of

Queensland,

Brisbane

CSIRO, multiple

locations

Federal Government,

headquartered in

Canberra drawing on

researchers from

around Australia

Queensland

Government,

Brisbane with

representatives in

Roma and

Toowoomba

Type

Research

partnership between

UQ and industry

focused on CSG in

Queensland

Research

partnership between

CSIRO and industry

focussed on

unconventional gas.

Various State

Government fund

specific research

projects

Statutory committee

comprising scientists

to advise

government

regulators on the

impacts of CSG and

large coal mining

development on

Australia’s water

resources

Statuary body

established to

facilitate

engagement

between

government,

industry, landholders

and regional

communities

41 Initially based in Brisbane with a Queensland focus (as the only State where CSG production had been approved) but as unconventional gas production was considered by other Australian States, additional Regional Research Advisory Committees were established in New South Wales, South Australia and Northern Territory.

144

Year of

Establishment 2011 2011 2011 2013

Funding

Organisations at

01/12/2016

Shell/QGC, Arrow

Energy, Santos,

APLNG, UQ

APLNG, CSIRO,

Origin Energy,

Santos, Shell/QGC,

(previously AGL

Energy) Federal Government

Queensland

Government

The CSG producers assume various roles in CSG research – examiners of the

phenomenon of interest, funders of research and providers of data and site access. As in

all ‘infant’ or nascent industries, the scientific organisations in the emerging CSG research

enterprise have developed networks and communities of practice, evaluated their

comparative advantage vis-à-vis other organisations and defined their distinctive identities

and reputations. The gas producers reported that they wanted to see clearer divisions of

labour between the research organisations so there was no replication of efforts or

contested research findings. In this context, minimising wastage of resources, negotiating

boundaries and differentiated research agendas are elements of the UQ-CCSG’s research

integrity governance.

While the goal was to define clear divisions of labour between research organisations and

groups, CSG researchers reported several contests between researchers and research

groups to gain the attention and support of the CSG producers. Interviewees highlighted,

in broad terms, how CSIRO and ISEC had ‘national interests’ in unconventional gas

(particularly water, geology and regulation) in contrast to the interests of UQ-CCSG and

the Gasfields Commission. These organisations had more localised interests at the State,

basin, project, community and land-holder levels. The researchers from other

organisations found it easy to cleave and define separate but related research projects,

but there were difficulties in other fields. While the blame for not being able to divide

projects between groups or to work collaboratively was frequently attributed to the

personalities of researchers, there were structural or practical reasons as to why it was

problematic to divide projects between groups, i.e., the capabilities and tenure of current

staff, access to company data and resources or competing workloads. Underpinning the

divisions and alliances with other research organisations, is the organisational culture of

competition within Australian universities: for students, research funds, international and

industry collaborations, prolific researchers and prestige. For example, staff in the SMI are

fully funded by external grants, public or private. The competition for resources and

145

prestige potentially undermines multi-party collaborative innovation and research efforts

(Slaughter & Leslie, 1997).

4.3 The Nature of the UQ-CCSG

This study assumes that there are no neutral sources of funding whether governmental or

from the corporate sector and it is understood that all funders have specific motivations

and goals of their own, shaped by organisational strategies, structures and cultures. The

needs and objectives of research funders are signalled in a variety of ways including, but

not limited to, setting and limiting the research agenda and timelines, their reporting and

disclosure requirements, selection of researchers and topics and the communication of

findings. Whether the UIRC accepts partial or complete funding from industry, government

agencies, and national research agency funding programs or through collaboration with

foundations or NGOs, the funding source shapes the structures and practices of the UIRC.

Across the world, university-based researchers are grappling with the material and social

complexity of unconventional gas extraction, signalled by growth in scientific publications,

new journals and trade publications (i.e. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

and the Unconventional Gas and Oil Magazine) and by the establishment of research

centres and programs. From one perspective, the establishment of the UQ-CCSG was a

strategic opportunity for UQ researchers to be involved from the outset in the development

and regulation of the first commercially viable CSG-LNG development at a time when

natural gas was touted as ‘transition fuel’ to renewable energy. A different perspective

foregrounds the sense of place and community, and views UQ as contributing knowledge

to a phenomenon of great significance to local Queensland communities. In this context,

the UQ-CCSG was established.

On 7 December 2011, the then Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, launched the AUD$20

million research joint venture – the UQ-CCSG - committing to bring together the industry,

government and the university partners for an initial funding cycle of five years (Tomlinson,

2011). The implicit mission of the UQ-CCSG was to gather and generate evidence to

shape the technology, practices and policy of CSG production in Queensland – the first

commercially viable coal seam gas to liquified natural gas (CSG-LNG) export development

in the world. The stated aims of the Centre “are to be a world leading centre of excellence

146

that serves the research and educational needs of industry, government and community

stakeholders regarding this emerging industry” (UQ-CCSG, 2013). The partnership

agreement suggested the parties would collaborate in four areas – education, research, ad

hoc advice to government and industry and utilisation of research and education materials

for commercial gains. Other than the short-lived Master of Science and Petroleum

Engineering, dual-badged with Herriot Watt, and occasional guest lectures in other

programs, the UQ-CCSG was not involved in teaching per se. Some staff, who were jointly

employed by faculties, had some teaching duties. However, the majority of UQ-CCSG was

focussed on research.

The knowledge being gained about the Queensland experience was not only destined to

shape local practices but influence decision-makers in other jurisdictions. For example,

between 2016 and 2017 the Federal Government, with its national interest in energy

security, publicly encouraged State Governments to lift the bans on the extraction of

unconventional gas. Various parliamentary inquiries e.g. the Victorian Parliamentary

Inquiry into Unconventional Gas and the South Australian Parliamentary Committee were

informed by knowledge generated from UQ-CCSG. Thus, UQ-CCSG research cannot be

separated from the contentious socio-political environment from which it emerges.

UQ is the oldest of the ten universities located in or around Brisbane, the capital of

Queensland and has the country’s most prominent TTO – Uniquest. As it is the oldest

university, many influential leaders across Queensland society have connections to UQ.

Like other world-class research-intensive universities, UQ has become a significant civil

society actor, contributing to social and economic progress (Altbach & Salmi, 2011; Salmi,

2009) . As a comprehensive university that receives more industry-funds than most other

Australian universities and a member of the Group of Eight (Go8) ‘elite’, UQ maintains a

‘dense’ network and seeks to maintain the trust of community members (J. Johnston,

Banerjee, & Geller, 2015). Particularly in secular nations like Australia, universities have

the potential to be an influential voice in promoting equity and sustainability, and

challenging adverse cultural and social norms. The influence and legacy of UQ within

Queensland society potentially makes it an effective partner for legitimising a nascent

industry and technologies in Queensland (Sanjay Jain & George, 2007).

147

Like most of the universities listed in Table 2, UQ is located approximate to substantial

mining sites, company and service company representatives and industry organisations

and has a long history of engaging with various segments of the mining industry, i.e. in

training mining engineers, undertaking contract research, sharing equipment and providing

industry training. Queensland is a large global exporter of extractives, including LNG,

derived from CSG more recently. Therefore, industry organisations and the government

support Brisbane as a hub for mining technology and science. The establishment of the

UQ-CCSG can be viewed in the context of being one of over twenty research institutes,

centres and programs based at Queensland universities ‘providing technical solutions’ to

the global mining industry. In 2015, Queensland’s chief scientist identified CSG as a State

research priority and noted that the UQ-CCSG was the largest unconventional gas

research program in Australia (Queensland Office of the Chief Scientist, 2015).

Several gas producers, engineering and service companies contributing to the CSG-LNG

projects have their Australian headquarters in Brisbane. The UQ-CCSG is located on the

St. Lucia campus located approximately six kilometres southwest of the Brisbane Central

Business District (CBD). UQ is one of the larger publicly-funded Go8 universities in

Australia, with over 50,000 students, 6,700 staff and multiple campuses.42 The offices for

the four CSG producers are in and around the CBD. Staff from industry, government and

universities can formally and informally meet at cafes, trade conferences and other

activities. The significance of physical, cognitive and organisational proximity has been

identified as a factor fostering knowledge creation and technology transfer (D'Este, Guy, &

Iammarino, 2013; D'Este & Iammarino, 2010). Dowling refers to the significance of

‘innovation hubs’ and describes innovation as a ‘contact sport’ (2015).

UQ-CCSG is located on the top floor of the Sir James Foots Building located in the

Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology zone at UQ. The Sir James Foots

building is not a traditional university building – it has closed key access and very few

seminar rooms. The building houses the SMI and from 2017, the faculty administration

group from the Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology, while its

former location, the old 1950s Engineering Building is demolished and replaced. Research

collaboration with industry partners is essential to the operations of SMI and when this

42 For more information about the University of Queensland see http://www.uq.edu.au

http://www.uq.edu.au/

148

study commenced in 2013, profits for mining companies were beginning to fall. At the time,

many senior researchers had to share office space. However, before long the Institute’s

operating funds contracted, following the trajectory of the mining boom and bust cycle.

From 2013, many SMI researchers did not have their contracts renewed and a wholescale

review and restructure of the Institute was undertaken in 2015. The institute generally does

not provide teaching and qualifications, so the business model for the SMI relies on funds

from industry and government to conduct research. The institute does not teach

undergraduate programs and has one taught master’s degree program directed towards

industry personnel, which means that it receives little student income. This makes it

difficult to maintain during the regular downturns in the mining sector. As the UQ-CCSG

was being established in 2011, the University sought funding from the CSG industry to

build a separate facility to house the UQ-CCSG, but insufficient funds were raised and the

UQ-CCSG was located physically and operationally in the SMI.43

The original reporting structure for the UQ-CCSG was through the SMI, which initially

caused some confusion and conflict, given different industrial processes and associated

impacts related to CSG-LNG as compared to other mining. The UQ-CCSG was never

integrated into the operations of the SMI as far as integrated strategic planning and

reporting went. For example, the UQ-CCSG was not part of the external review and

restructuring of the SMI, which occurred during 2014/2015; nor was the exploration and

production of gas on the curriculum of the compulsory one-week course for HDR students

enrolled in SMI in 2014. UQ-CCSG members sought to position the Centre in the UQ’s

Energy Initiative rather than have it aligned with the mining industry.

The Centre is funded through a membership model, whereby organisations contribute a

minimum of AUD$500,000 per annum for five years to fund a multi-party program of

research and education activities. Membership in the UQ-CCSG is open to others in the

industry, and there have been specific attempts to seek funds from the State Government

agencies, but the commitment of AUD$500,000 p.a. for 5 years has restricted the

numbers.

43 The invitation to investment is available on-line at http://www.ccsg.uq.edu.au/Portals/0/CCSG%20Invitation%20for%20Infrastructure%20Investment.pdf.

http://www.ccsg.uq.edu.au/Portals/0/CCSG%20Invitation%20for%20Infrastructure%20Investment.pdf

149

The founding members of the UQ-CCSG include the three larger gas producers: QGC,

contributing AUD$2million p.a.; Santos, AUD$500,000 p.a.; and Arrow Energy,

AUD$500,000 p.a. and UQ, AUD $1million p.a. Each member has a seat on the Centre’s

Strategic Advisory Board (SAB). In 2014, QGC joined GISERA, CSIRO’s private public

research partnership investigating unconventional gas. The other key gas producer,

Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) initially only joined GISERA; however, in 2014, APLNG

also joined UQ-CCSG, contributing AUD$500,000 p.a. By early 2016, QGC (now Shell),

Santos, APLNG and others had joined GISERA. The only other member of UQ-CCSG not

to join GISERA was Arrow Energy. As Arrow Energy is a Joint Venture (JV) with 50%

owned by Shell, it is assumed that Shell’s interests in GISERA are covered within QGC’s

membership. The firms are represented in the UQ-CCSG by people with varying roles –

from communications to production, and with access to resources and power within their

own firms.

In board terms, the key functions of the UQ-CCSG are research and education in the

areas of water, geoscience, petroleum engineering and social performance. In broad

terms, the research joint venture functions to develop research projects of mutual interest

to members, with topics being suggested by industry, researchers, government or

community challenges. It also facilitates the exchange of data between members and

researcher access to sites. In addition, the Centre provides multiple networking

opportunities, consultancy in response to specific time-critical government or industry

challenges (e.g. evaluating the performance of STEM44 school partnerships), support for

the classification of intellectual property, licencing arrangements and the

commercialisation of relevant research. Of interest to industry members, is their

introduction and access to researchers and their research, university-wide –i.e. to

geoscientists, and water, public health and organisational trust experts. In terms of

education, in 2013 there were few Australian universities offering education for petroleum

engineers and those that did were focussed on offshore operations.45 In response to the

forecast shortage of qualified engineers with knowledge of unconventional gas production

in Australia, UQ-CCSG established a partnership with the Institute of Petroleum

44 STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths 45 Student Chapters of the Society of Petroleum Engineers were established at the following Australian universities – University of New South Wales (1986), University of Queensland (2002), Queensland University of Technology (2008), University of Adelaide (2002), Monash (2015), University of Western Australia (2000) and Curtin University (2010). https://www.spe.org/chapters/

https://www.spe.org/chapters/

150

Engineering at Heriot-Watt University in the UK to deliver the post-graduate suite of

qualifications – Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma and Master of Science in

Petroleum Engineering from 2013. Heriot-Watt has a global reputation for providing

education for the petroleum industry. A search of the UQ courses database revealed that

this program was not offered from 2018.

Membership of the UQ-CCSG is linked in some part to a ‘social licence to operate’ and

implementation of ‘local procurement plans’. The final QGLNG Social Impact Management

Plan Report, ‘New Neighbours’, was published in 2015, as required by the conditions of

the producers’ licencing requirements. The report stated that QCG provided

AUD$12million of research monies to UQ and CSIRO between 2010 and 2016, which was

to contribute to “national and international knowledge of the coal seam gas industry, the

effective design of major infrastructure projects and community understanding of the

implications of new industrial development within rural and regional locations.” The same

report also stated that the QGC had fulfilled the conditions linked to the project approval by

the government in 2008, including a commitment to fund an initial research project at UQ

to define meaningful indicators to measure QGC’s community contribution (QGC, 2015).

The significance of the UQ-CCSG as providing an opportunity to pursue company

objectives and meet the government’s regulatory responsibilities can be illustrated in a

variety of ways. For example, QGC and APLNG sought approval from the Queensland

Government’s Coordinator General to have their membership of the UQ-CCSG and

GISERA be deemed enough to partially fulfil one of the conditions for their licence – that

is, participation in the CSG Industry Monitoring Group. Initially the CG’s office was to

establish a group to monitor the industry, but this group did not eventuate. This point also

highlights the fact that businesses have a broad range of reasons for UIE, with no two

businesses listing the same motivations. The motivations are organisation-specific (even

within the same sector).

As the Strategic Advisory Board (SAB) guides the strategic direction of the Centre and

maintains an overview of the Centre's performance, the Board contributes to the Centre’s

research integrity governance. In contrast to the UQ-CCSG’s SAB membership model,

which comprises industry, firm, university and government representatives collectively

making decisions about the research agenda and UIRC operations, the ReFINE

151

(Researching Fracking in Europe) research program in the United Kingdom46 seeks to

“ensure that research [is] relevant to the public interest and free from industry bias”. To do

this, ReFINE has created an Independent Science Board comprising only academics from

Europe and the US to make decisions about the research programs (R. J. Davies &

Herringshaw, 2016).

The funding arrangements characterise the UQ-CCSG and shape the stewardship of its

research. For the period of this study, Industry has funded 78% of the UQ-CCSG. There

are no limits at UQ around the maximum allowed industry funding. Some research

organisations stipulate maximum percentages of industry-funding to ensure diverse

sources of funding and weaken the potential influence of industry demands. It is commonly

understood that individual researchers are granted research funds, and it is the university’s

role to ensure the researchers are accountable for meeting the requirements of the grants.

The UQ-CCSG differs from this, and the member funds are pooled, and various projects

are funded. Themes for potential projects can either be brought by researchers to the

Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and SAB for consideration, or SAB can identify projects

and then contract researchers to undertake specific pieces of work. The findings of all

funded research projects are shared equally among the gas producers. Research project

management for the UQ-CCSG is a time-consuming role and there is close monitoring of

the progress of projects, with many decisions about the status of the research projects

being made by the TAG. The collaborative project management approach ensures

research projects, that is, goals, methodologies, outputs and resourcing, are more closely

followed than in traditional government grant funding processes.

While appearing to some as one of the Australian government ‘sponsored’ or ‘engineered’

CRCs, the UQ-CCSG is different from those competitive, regulatory and accountability

mechanisms (Fernández-Zubieta, Andújar-Nagore, Giachi, & Fernández-Esquinas, 2016;

Sinnewe et al., 2016; Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2014). While the establishment of the UQ-

CCSG may have been triggered by Queensland government agencies requiring the gas

producers to invest in R&D locally, the Centre is not bound by the mechanisms of

government sponsorship. This frees the UQ-CCSG of various governance and reporting

requirements associated with the government’s CRC program, ARC Linkage grants and

46 For more information about the ReFINE project see http://www.refine.org.uk/

http://www.refine.org.uk/

152

Industrial Transformation Centres. This also allows the Centre to better respond to the

internal decision-making and funding cycles of members’ firms – April to March and July to

June, rather than the traditional January to December university accounting cycle.

However, it also means that the centre is overlooked in some internal university

discussions about cooperative research arrangements (as the Centre was not captured in

various datasets) and diminishes the legitimacy of the Centre in some circles, e.g.

compared with other CRCs. As the Centre is operating outside some of the government

directed and institutionalised UIE mechanisms, it risks being overlooked or ignored, thus

potentially undermining the legitimacy of some research output internally to the university.

SAB is the key forum for collective decision-making in the UQ-CCSG and the key

mechanism for allocating funds to research and education projects and endorsing projects.

Other roles include monitoring the performance of the Centre, sharing knowledge and

managing the collective interests of the Centre’s key stakeholders. This study refers to the

period 2014 to 2016, when SAB was structured as follows. SAB was, and is, chaired by

the nominee of the UQ Vice-Chancellor. Meetings are held quarterly and usually run for

three to four hours. The members of SAB are listed on the Centre’s website and include:

1) senior representatives from the four gas producing consortia, with the individuals

holding roles responsible for technical, commercial or stakeholder engagement within their

organisations, 2) Director of the Centre47, 3) Professors representing the four research

streams of the Centre – Geoscience, Water, Petro-chemical Engineering and Social

Performance, and 4) a representative of the Australian O&G industry’s peak body, the

Australia Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA), who was also a

Queensland Gasfields Commissioner (2014-2016) and more recently, an Adjunct

Professor at UQ. There are also representatives from the Queensland Government’s

Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment,

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, and Department

of Environment and Heritage Protection. More recently, Chairs in Well Engineering and

Production Technology and Onshore Gas Reservoir Modelling have been appointed and

two of the initial Chairs (Social Performance and Geoscience / Subsurface Modelling) have

finished their contracts and moved on to new roles. The changes to the governance and

47 The Director of the UQ-CCSG is a Non-executive Director at National Energy Resources Australia (NERA) from 2016.

153

reporting mechanisms of the UQ-CCSG made at the end of the first 5-year funding cycle

(2012-2016) are beyond the scope of this study.

The research project management mechanisms related to UQ-CCSG research projects

differ from those of other parts of the university. The UQ-CCSG joint venture contract

specifies research project monitoring and evaluation processes. These include periodic

reporting of cashflow and progress to the Director, Technical Advisory Group (TAG) or

SAB, depending upon the level of significance. All principal investigators or HDR students

receiving funds must agree to the conditions, including Intellectual Property and

Confidentiality provisions, as well as ensuring the opportunity for UQ-CCSG members to

preview and provide feedback on materials prior to publication. There is a UQ-CCSG

protocol in place for managing publications (and a different one for press releases) which

ensures UQ’s compliance with the contract. For example, UQ must provide 30 days for

members’ review on any draft publication (though the Centre Director can waive this if

deemed ‘urgent’). The interviewed researchers report these can be perceived as both

enhancing the integrity of the research, if seen as collaborative effort, or detracting from

the integrity of the research, if seen as attempting to unduly influence how the findings are

reported. As a point of contrast, the ReFINE Centre in the United Kingdom insists that “all

correspondence relating to the project will be recorded using a secure email archive. This

will make all data and correspondence available to the public upon request. This level of

transparency is essential for ensuring and proving ethical conduct” (R. J. Davies &

Herringshaw, 2016).

Fieldwork reveals the UQ-CCSG leaders – the Director and Professors – and the principal

investigators, take on multiple responsibilities in addition to conducting research. These

roles include the traditional academic role of PhD supervision and peer-review. In addition,

they assume roles of research portfolio manager, negotiator, project manager, relationship

management (e.g. ad hoc advice to many internal and external stakeholders, press

comments and public events) and business development (seeking more resources

including through the commercialisation of research findings and grant applications). Their

relationships are developed and managed by the Centre, rather than through Uniquest or

JK Tech (the University’s TTO and Mining TTO) or the Federal and State government

agencies responsible for driving UIE. This supports the notion that TTOs dominate policy

discussions about UIE; they are but only one mechanism to industry engagement,

154

research commercialisation and impact (O’Kane, Mangematin, Geoghegan, & Fitzgerald,

2015; Smyth, Williams, & Vasilescu, 2016)

Within the UQ-CCSG, the motivations and structure of each research project are

negotiated, as there is no single traditional disciplinary base of norms and routines to

direct and limit how research is conducted. The membership of the UQ-CCSG SAB, the

operating context and the nature of the phenomena suggest different groups within the

Centre are pursuing research from different viewpoints. In highly generalised terms, the

four approaches to research taking place in the UQ-CCSG can be characterised as

academic, policy, commercial and engineering research, as outlined in Table 14. To

illustrate the differences between the styles, research for commercial entities is much more

likely to assess issues such as industrial improvements, whereas research commissioned

by governments and NGOs evaluates the impacts of changing regulations or programs.

Engineers, in contrast, may frame the current CSG industry as a challenge like putting the

man on the moon or building a dam. An ‘engineering problem’ is when there is a precise

goal, for example fulfillment of supply contract obligations and to maximum profit, and the

constraints to be overcome – technical, physical, financial and regulatory. While many

outsiders conflate scientific and engineering research, three interviewees saw there were

key distinctions. Scientific research is about understanding the nature, origins and

behaviour of the universe, whereas engineering is about solving problems. One

interviewee suggested that if the Director of the UQ-CCSG was trained as a scientist,

rather than an engineer, then the organisational culture would be different.

Observations of UQ-CCSG work revealed that there are commonly four different

approaches to research, which are underpinned by the organisational dynamics and goals

of the UQ-CCSG. That a UIRC has a diversity of objectives and disciplinary approaches is

not unexpected, as revealed in the UIE literature in ‘Section 2.2.5, Shifting focus of UIE

Scholarship’. What is also predicated is that there are tensions between the different

approaches to research (Ambos, Mäkelä, Birkinshaw, & D'Este, 2008; Steinmo, 2015).

The TAG and research project meetings revealed multiple examples of discussions

between researchers and industry representatives about the research questions,

methodologies, resourcing and desired outputs. For example, there were discussions in

the TAG about the short-term and long-term public interest research objectives in the

155

realm of public health, and whether firms should be funding or providing data to such

projects.

Table 14: Categorisation of UQ-CCSG Research Approaches

Element

Academic

Research

(Life / Physical /

Earth / Social

Sciences)

Regulator /

Policy Research

Commercial (Oil and

Gas) Research

Engineering

Research

Key Mission

Characterize CSG

Industry

(‘truth of originality

and significance)

Australian /

Queensland /

community

societal progress

(‘truth’ relevant to

policy)

Reduce Costs (‘truth’

of value)

Engineering (‘truth’

to application of

technology)

Motivation Inquiry-driven Policy-driven Profit-driven Solution-driven

Initiator Scientists Government Firms - Producers

Firms – Service

Providers

Institutional

Affiliations

Universities,

Learned

Academies

Regulatory

agencies,

advisory

committees

Firms, Industry

Associations

Firms, Professional

Associations

Key

Stakeholders

Scientists,

research

participants,

funders

Community,

Society

Shareholders,

regulators, staff,

landholders

Client, solution

providers,

shareholders

Innovation Style Discovery

Explanation /

Governance Seeking Solution

Solution /

Application /

Development

Research

timeframes Open-ended

Statutory

deadlines, political

pressure

or time pressure

because of

imminent danger

Statutory (externally

set) deadlines, project

(internally set)

deadlines

Statutory (externally

set) deadlines,

project (internally

set) deadlines

Audience

Scientific

Community

Policy makers,

affected

industries, courts,

media, consumers Firm / customer Firm / client

Levels of Conflict

/ Size of

Controversy

Low, controversies

stay inside the

scientific

community

Often high

because of

conflicting

interests

Low, controversies

stay inside the

scientific community

Low, controversies

stay inside the

scientific community

Source: Adapted from Strassheim & Kettunen (2014: 266) and Steinmo (2015: 598)

This study suggests that because much UIE scholarship focusses on the industrial

complexes of the ‘new economy’ – industries where there are traditionally strong ties

between the professions and university science, the dynamics of transdisciplinary UIRCs

156

have been overshadowed in developing UIE business models. Various scholars have

identified varied pathways and frequencies in which different disciplines and industries

engage (D'Este & Perkmann, 2011; Hughes & Kitson, 2012; King’s College London and

Digital Science, 2015; Olmos-Penuela, Castro-Martinez, & D'Este, 2014; M. Perkmann et

al., 2015; Powell et al., 1996; Tartari & Breschi, 2012). In the case of the UQ-CCSG,

which is positioned as the conduit between industry and university, the traditional

disciplinary pathways and networks to research partners and end-users are disrupted and

new ones put in place.


This chapter introduced the case, UQ-CCSG, honing in on the socio-spatial context

relevant to research integrity. The key elements were the history and nature of

Queensland’s CSG industry and the significance of industry to the political economy of

Queensland and Australia more broadly. The chapter also included the history of the

university, the UQ-CCSG and other key research organisations examining the CSG

industry in Queensland. Closer examination of the UQ-CCSG revealed that there are four

approaches to research: academic, policy/regulator, commercial and engineering. The

scene is set to report the fieldwork findings in Chapters 5 and 6.

157

5 Chapter Five – Nature of Research Integrity Governance in the UQ-CCSG

5.0 Preamble

The findings presented in this chapter mark the beginning of the process to determine the

extent to which the Provisional Model for Research Integrity Governance derived from the

UIE scholarship and represented in Chapter Two, relates to the case of the UQ-CCSG. As

set out in Figure 4, the Provisional Model proposes research integrity governance in a

UIRC comprises two elements – safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process and

establishing and maintaining the integrity of partnerships. This chapter determines whether

the findings about research integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG conform to the

Provisional Model and reflects upon the extent to which the model needs to be revised.

Generally, the data reinforces the Provisional Model but suggests there are three

additional elements of research integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG. These elements

are discussed in further detail but relate to, 1) ensuring the integrity of items created by the

research partnership, 2) demonstrating the organisational integrity of the UQ-CCSG to

external stakeholders, and 3) pursuing research integrity through a dense networks of

research collaborators and end-users.

This chapter is divided into seven sections. The first sections reveal how the case study

supports the two elements of research integrity governance posited by the Provisional

Model. The fieldwork revealed three additional elements, and these are discussed in

sections three to five. The concluding remarks in the final section draw together the

findings about the governance of research integrity in a contemporary UIRC. Together,

these findings form the foundation for a revised model of research integrity, which is

presented in Chapter Seven – The Revised Model for Research Integrity Governance.

The initial agreement negotiated by the UQ-CCSG partners revealed that ensuring

research findings were utilised was a key element of the UQ-CCSG work. Facilitating the

continuing engagement between industry representatives and research was an important

strategy for the UQ-CCSG. The professional training of the Centre’s Director in

engineering and business administration, industry-experience and networks, embedded

the idea that research integrity was inextricably tied to utility and impact. For example,

research findings were presented to industry representatives in draft form as they became

available and in useable format like a web-enabled database or plug-in for enterprise

158

software. UQ researchers were frequently invited to promote their research findings and

propose research projects of relevance to the funders. In this operating environment,

research integrity was linked to timeliness, accessibility and utility.

The UQ-CCSG staff also played a significant role in collating, critiquing and disseminating

relevant elements of the flood of scientific and lay information and data being exchanged

about CSG, e.g. presenting at community meetings and parliamentary enquiries. At the

beginning of the UQ-CCSG it was difficult for stakeholders to access or understand the

implications of many information sources, e.g. the Environmental Impact Plans for the LNG

projects ran for hundreds of pages (QGC, 2015) and the degree of relevance of research

about the US shale gas industry was not known. In this operating climate, the relationship

between the university and industry partners was crucial, but so too was the role of the

UQ-CCSG in mediating the relationships between the industry and the regulators, the

industry and the community and to a lesser degree, the regulator and the community. The

integrity of UQ-CCSG research was not only being monitored and evaluated by peers from

the scientific community and industry partners, but also the various external stakeholders

seeking certainty about the impacts of CSG (Espig, 2018). Demonstrating research

integrity to a range of external stakeholders was crucial to the organisational legitimacy

and reputation of the UQ-CCSG as it operated within intractable public conflicts about

CSG.

5.1 Integrity of the Scientific Process – predicted by the Provisional Model

As predicted in the Provisional Model for Research Integrity Governance, UQ has

formalised a research integrity framework of policies and procedures. Supporting the

implementation of the research integrity policy is a network of research integrity advisers

(an academic staff member from each faculty and institute) linked to the centralised node –

the Research Integrity Office. Their work is supported by a compulsory training regime for

research staff and HDR students. The governance arrangements integrate laws and

binding legal instruments, quasi-legal instruments, collegial decision-making and feedback

mechanisms, fulfilling the University’s obligations under the Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the ARC / NHMRC / Innovation and Science Australia

funding regimes. At the centre of the research integrity framework is ‘the Code’ (National

Health and Medical Research Council & Australian Research Council & Universities

159

Australia, 2018). Like many other research universities in the Anglosphere, UQ uses the

Epigeum (a spinout from University College London (UCL), now owned by Oxford

University Press) research integrity training programs across the entire university. The

training encourages researchers and students to act as ethicists and whistle-blowers,

providing them with training to assist them to understand and adhere to the legislation,

regulations, and policies to which they are subject. Unsurprisingly, how the principles of

research integrity are put into practice differs widely across disciplines and between the

facilities and institutes. Nevertheless, a Cochrane review investigating the effectiveness of

interventions to prevent research misconduct and promote integrity concluded that, "Due

to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of

research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain" (Marusic, Wager, Utrobicic,

Rothstein, & Sambunjak, 2016, p. 2)

While universities are expected to have policies and procedures in place to ensure

research integrity, the conversations exposed the diverse normative interpretations of

research integrity, not only among researchers from different disciplines and seniority, but

also in the academic, policy, commercial and engineering domains. For example, some

industry members of the UQ-CCSG saw that research integrity was entirely the

responsibility of the university and felt that they had no responsibility or authority in that

arena. One industry participant, thinking about the issue more closely, stated that research

integrity made no sense in his working context. The issues and challenges of research

integrity, if there were any, should be discussed in the context of work that he was familiar

with, i.e. inputs and outputs, resourcing, quality control and assurance, CSR and

teamwork. Another participant even suggested that UQ-CCSG should not be funding

studies like this one investigating the ‘quality control’ practices of university research, as

that was wholly the university’s contractual responsibility, not the industry partners’.

As identified in the UIE alliance literature, research partnerships involve managing differing

institutional logics, which change, merge or dominate over time (Estrada, de la Fuente, &

Martín-Cruz, 2010; Heitor, 2015; Owen-Smith et al., 2002; Steinmo, 2015). The different

goals and practices shape how research integrity and misconduct are understood. The

different ideas of research misconduct are revealed by an array of examples - ‘copying

text’ or plagiarism; acknowledging authors or not in public presentations; researchers

receiving research funds for a specified project but failing to undertake the agreed-to

160

activities; sharing data without the explicit permission of the owners; robust discussions or

undue pressure from powerful external interests; and in HDR student supervision or

mentoring. However, these notions of misconduct are not static. Over the two years of the

fieldwork, there was evidence that a blending process or hybridisation of goals and

practices started to occur. For example, in the context of disseminating research findings

for different audiences in formats they were used to, academic research was often

abridged, and authorship was not acknowledged.

The processes of articulating and emphasising commonly understood norms and values

around research integrity is key in establishing an organisational culture that fosters

research integrity (Forsberg et al., 2018). Partial notions of research integrity, that is utility,

rigour, accountability, cost-effectiveness, communication of findings and socialisation of

research projects were frequently subjects under discussion at SAB, TAG and in other

UQ-CCSG fora; the term ‘research integrity’ was not frequently discussed. Information

about university-wide initiatives was distributed to staff and students, but the Centre did

not establish any specific fora or events related to research integrity during the period of

the fieldwork. However, making UIE, research integrity and evidence-based policy

themselves topics of research, demonstrates a willingness on the part of CCSG to engage

with the challenges of research integrity. Within an Australian university setting, the role of

Professor in a UIRC brings responsibilities for leadership in research or management –

both positions having defined accountabilities for ensuring the integrity of industry-funded

research. There were four Professorial Chairs within the Centre and a Director-Professor

who not only coordinated research programs in their fields, but also undertook projects of

their own.

Generally, the Chairs are joint appointments between the Centre and other schools or

institutes in the university. Of the five senior staff recruited to the Professorial Chairs in the

Centre, four have PhDs, one was being awarded in 2013. Prior to joining the UQ-CCSG,

the Director had substantial experience in the O&G industry abroad and a Queensland -

Australian government owned syngas-carbon capture and storage project. Recruiting

academic staff to the UQ-CCSG proved to be a slow process. The rapid upsurge in

interest in unconventional gas around the world, coupled with the traditional long notice

and transition periods required by academics moving between universities, meant that the

Professorial Chair positions were filled between 2011 and 2014. Traditionally, professors

161

at UQ would have been expected to have a PhD and a substantial period of scholarly

achievement, but that has been changing recently. Together, the Professors assume much

of the responsibility for ensuring the integrity of UIRC research, as principal investigators,

supervisors, colleagues and research portfolio leaders.

The UQ-CCSG highlights the multiple ethical and methodological challenges intrinsic to

energy and resources research, especially for those researchers attentive to community

relations and the social and environmental impact of their research. The scientific

knowledge and epistemic authority of energy research is partially dependent upon others

being able to identify the researchers’ position vis-à-vis the industry, and thus their

motivations, access to data and methodologies (De Winter & Kosolosky, 2013)

Researchers commonly position themselves as working for the industry, regulator or

advocacy group and whether their research as ‘for the industry’ or ‘of the industry’. The

boundaries between researcher, advocate, critic, consultant and ‘honest broker’ are

obfuscated, on purpose or unintentionally. The UQ-CCSG staff are emphatic that all

publications and presentations funded by the UQ-CCSG or assisted by any of the

members, contain disclosure statements. Most of the UQ-CCSG researchers stay

embedded within their own faculties and disciplines so are not necessarily attuned to this

research integrity governance and need to be assisted by UQ-CCSG staff.

Analysis of contemporary policy documents and the university website established that

Australian universities are required to establish a framework for research integrity, aligned

with principles established in the Code (National Health and Medical Research Council &

Australian Research Council & Universities Australia, 2018). Universities and researchers

are legally committed to adhering to the Code, through undertakings defined in the funding

contracts between the research councils, universities and researchers. The Code itself is

not legally binding. Therefore, as contracts between universities and industry partners do

not necessarily refer to the Code, potentially researchers in industry-funded research

partnerships could not adhere to the Code with legal impunity. Many factors mitigate this

possibility including, but not limited to, the whole-of-university research integrity training,

the professional standards which many researchers need to adhere to for membership or

registration, and the fact that most researchers are bound to following the Code through

their other funding arrangements. As research is essential to accreditation, historically

there is strong research integrity culture across Australian universities.

162

5.2 Integrity of the UIE Partnership – predicted by the Provisional Model

As highlighted in Chapter One, research integrity is linked to a structural condition as well

as an ethical one. Thus, securing and maintaining commitment from the participating firms,

universities and employees to the goals of the research partnership is a crucial element of

research integrity. The shared goal of the UQ-CCSG members is to be a research

organisation positioned as a legitimate and useful source of knowledge of CSG within the

university for the regulators and policymakers and for the industry. UIE scholars have

revealed the importance of shared goals, access to resources and the individual and

organisational cognitive and relational ties between university and industry members – in

effect university-industry research partnerships (Steinmo & Rasmussen, 2018); (Bozeman

et al., 2016). How parties coordinate partnerships and how knowledge flows between

partners and is absorbed by partners, is fundamental to the success of UIE (Lakpetch &

Lorsuwannarat, 2012). The case of the UQ-CCSG demonstrates the need for partnership

facilitation from top-down, bottom-up and peer-to-peer. At every SAB and TAG meeting

the author attended, university and firm staff were requested, directed or cajoled into

communicating and sharing information with each other by senior UQ-CCSQ staff.

Strengthening the integrity of the partnership was achieved through continual and multi-

modal communication, driven primarily through the Director’s office, the regular SAB, TAG

and project meetings and the joint project management software Celoxis project

management platform 48.

Multiple scholars have raised their concerns about the integrity of science and how the

university and researchers are compromised through inadequate governance of the

partnerships (e.g. Bozeman et al., 2016; Heitor, 2015). Examples of university-industry

partnership governance ‘best practice’ abound in the scholarly and professional literature,

but their findings are often contradictory, even within one field of research. There is no

consensus as to whether groups with strictly bounded members that engage in

representative decision-making and participatory methods have better outcomes.

In the eyes of some research participants, the organisational integrity of the UQ-CCSG

was not assured as there was a ‘top down’ rather than a ‘bottom up’ approach to

48 For more information about the Celoxis project management platform see https://www.celoxis.com/

https://www.celoxis.com/

163

establishing it. In the Australian context, urban and regional based universities have quite

different patterns of external engagement, reflecting when the institutions were

established, the demands of local communities for qualifications and knowledge,

recruitment of international students, public and non-public funding arrangements. In

Queensland, there are ten universities operating within the framework of the national

higher education system yet competing for resources in multiple ways in terms of grants,

students and reputation. The enormity of the CSG industry has provided opportunities for

all universities to engage with the industry in some way – e.g. through joint research,

training programs, consultancy to the industry, regulators or other stakeholders. The

differences between the nature of the engagement, including partnership arrangements,

level of formalisation, field of research, industry segment and amount of details in the

public sphere, reveals the diversity of UIE within one industry. One interviewee thought

that UQ was not the natural university partner for the gas producers because there are

significant physical and cognitive distance between gas wells, company headquarters and

UQ researchers. The interviewee thought that the UQ-CCSG was contrived by UQ

management to cash-in on a burgeoning industry, rather than respond to the interests of

Queenslanders.

The UQ-CCSG did not follow the traditional evolutionary pathway along the ‘partnership

continuum’. The University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP), a US-based

member-based organisation which draws together university and business interests,

defines a framework for research partnerships along a continuum. The framework places

research partnerships along the ‘partnership continuum’ characterised by an increasing

depth and breadth of engagement through five phases (UIDP, 2012). Some US business

and universities use the framework to develop their university-industry arrangements

(Ulrichsen & O'Sullivan, 2015), and the framework is also used by Australian universities

and businesses.

In contrast to the notion of partnerships evolving through several iterative phases to the

‘strategic’ level of joint research partnership, the UQ-CCSG was first established as a

research JV bypassing the initial stages of awareness building, gaining leadership support

and gathering resources. As highlighted in the previous section, the staff needed to be

recruited and the projects defined after the Centre was established. The social processes

of creating awareness of the partnership and research projects, developing an

164

organisational identity, garnering external support and seeking external monies were

largely undertaken after the UQ-CCSG was launched, rather than prior. Thus, in contrast

to the more commonly understood and iterative ‘bottom-up’ approach of institutionalising

research partnerships through drawing together a network of researchers and funders, the

UQ-CCSG gained legitimacy and built its organisational identity through a ‘top-down’

approach. Some of the research participants’ thoughts about research integrity were

grounded in their concerns that the UQ-CCSG was ‘imposed’ on UQ by university leaders

rather than been driven by academic objectives. The independence of researchers funded

by the UQ-CCSG, and therefore the integrity of their research, is inextricably challenged

owing to the way the UQ-CCSG was established.

Instead, the establishment of the UQ-CCSG reflected the ‘stairway model’ of university-

industry partnerships developed at the Munster University of Applied Sciences in

Germany. Instead of viewing UIE from the perspective of an evolutionary process, it

emphasised the strategic relevance of the relationship for each partner, and the

organisational level at which commitment and coordination takes place (Davey et al., 2011

). Using this framework highlights the different organisational structures and approaches to

the UQ-CCSG taken by each industry member, e.g., Arrow Energy, a company registered

in Australia, jointly owned by Shell and Petro China, delivering CSG projects in the Surat

and Bowen basin and with interests in various gas-fired power stations. The establishment

of the UQ-CCSG thus needs to be seen within the context of the O&G producers’ global

portfolios – part of their strategic responses to R&D objectives, international standards for

social responsibilities, compliance with Australian and Queensland legislation and

regulation, and gaining their social licence to operate.

UIE scholarship generally assumes the shared objective of the partners is to solve a

shared set of technical problems i.e. new or improved technologies (Betts & Santoro,

2011; Boardman & Gray, 2010). From one perspective, the shared goals of the UQ-CCSG

members reflect this. However, research participants report that the UQ-CCSG emerged

as a government-university-industry response to a politicised local technoscientific

challenge, rather than as the institutionalisation of previous relationships between

individuals from the university and the firm. The establishment of the UQ-CCSG cut across

a small array of formal and informal relationships between the university and companies

that was already in place. This suggests that there were no long-term pre-existing

165

relationships between the university and that industry representatives and UQ-CCSG

members had to work hard to develop and maintain working relationships. UIE scholarship

suggests that pre-existing relationships are significant in overcoming the inherent barriers

in UIE (Bozeman et al., 2016; D'Este et al., 2013).

The integrity of the partnership evolved through a myriad of interactive relationships and

frequent demonstrations of the value of the partnership to members. Through interpreting

and translating the CSG industry challenges into research questions, the UQ-CCSG seeks

to create value for the university and for industry partners. Previous studies have shown

that academic papers jointly published by academic researchers and their industry

collaborators, gain higher citations thereby providing a higher value for academic

researchers in the future (Hicks & Hamilton, 1999; Lebeau, Laframboise, Larivière, &

Gingras, 2008). Higher citations are a key element of many academic reward structures.

Part of that value is being able to leverage other sources of funds; and a significant

proportion of ARC funding is designated for university-industry linkages. The Centre

sought funds from ARC and other government agencies, O&G producers and service

companies, foreign universities and their national research councils. UIE scholars support

the notion that university-industry partnerships create resources and social capital through

a range of interactive relationships (Al-Tabbaa & Ankrah, 2016).

Without ongoing personal and professional interactions, UIE arrangements would

fragment. The intensity of engagement and the sharing of power within the partnership

helps shape the nature of research integrity governance. As universities and firms are

complex entities with trading-off multiple goals, there are frequent pressures to dissolve

the partnership. For example, as a study participant quipped during Shell’s acquisition of

the BG Group and QGC, the UQ-CCSG probably isn’t even the 10th most important issue

on his agenda.

Within the UQ-CCSG, the team – Business Manager, Research Manager and other Centre

administrators – monitor the approval and progress of research projects, assisted by

Celoxis, which can be accessed by university and firm members. Many of the projects are

multi-staged work packages with quarterly reporting and decision-gates (at the project,

TAG or SAB level), routinely required throughout the research project. Some researchers

found this level of oversight unusual and time-consuming, whereas others found it an

166

opportunity to stay engaged with the UQ-CCSG and industry partners. Examining research

integrity governance highlights the growth in non-academic work in universities (Baltaru &

Soysal, 2018). Observations of UQ-CCSG work, confirms that much activity was not

focussed on conducting research (experiments, observation, opinion-based, conceptual)

but creating the spaces and relationships to conduct and disseminate research, while

attracting more resources to the Centre.

The primary goal of CSG firms are to generate profit. The fieldwork revealed that while

there is no direct connection between material cashflow or changes in reserves bookings

49 - key indicators of profitability – there are multiple benefits for membership of the UQ-

CCSG. The commercial operating environment for the CSG industry was ‘tight’ since the

beginning, i.e. firms were cost sensitive due to over-runs in development costs, lower than

anticipated production and a changing workforce as industry moved from construction to

production phase. There was also a highly politicised context which was adding costs in

terms of firms’ social performance, social assessment and commitment to funding

communications and legal teams. There was direct and ‘assumed’ pressure for the Centre

to produce research output of commercial value (though not necessarily short-term) i.e.

investigation as to whether websites and reports could be licenced or available through a

paywall or whether modelling could be coded for use through software used in the firms.

As the Centre ended the first cycle of 5 years of funding and was looking to extend into the

second cycle, the Director sought to quantify the benefits to be gained from UQ-CCSG

membership. The exercise revealed that much of the budget was expended on research

(84%) and the rest on education and administration. That the firms found value in being a

member of the UQ-CCSG was confirmed as four of the initial five businesses committed to

a second 5-year-round of funding. QGC did not commit funds to the second 5-year-round.

It had been the largest initial contributor of funds in the first five years and had since been

subsumed into Shell. Shell’s interests were represented in the UQ-CCSG through Arrow

Energy (a joint venture with PetroChina).

One of the strengths of how the UQ-CCSG is organised is that new research projects can

emerge from a ‘push’ or ‘pull’. Through the UQ-CCSG, researchers are provided a forum

49 Many International Oil Companies are listed companies, so it is necessary to estimate the value of the resources and the associated costs of production to include in the companies’ balance sheet. The formulae used for estimating the value of the reserves, or reserve bookings, are commonly understood across companies, regulators and financiers.

167

via which to pitch research ideas to the firms. Additionally, companies are able to, as one

participant noted, ‘vacuum’ university research capabilities for ideas and solutions. The

Centre also facilitates exchanges between the gas producers, government representatives

and researchers to identify common challenges and translate them into workable research

projects. The politicised and rapidly evolving operating context points to the importance of

the UQ-CCSG partners being responsive to each other’s changing priorities and needs. It

also highlights the value of universities providing ‘safe space’ where industry, government

and other stakeholders can meet and build trusting personal relationships to identify better

ways of operating (M. Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Maria Abreu, Grinevich, Hughes, & Kitson,

2009; Cosh, Hughes, & Lester, 2006)

For this researcher, doing the fieldwork with UQ-CCSG, also highlighted the added

transactional time spent translating research findings into tangible items. In addition to the

immediately obvious issues of working with technologists to build testing rigs, create

websites or code algorithms, there were the time-consuming processes of negotiating the

scope and consensus among company representatives, crafting communications,

managing expectations around workload and delivery. The myriad exchanges between

researchers and company representatives necessitated by the UQ-CCSG agreement,

organisational structure and culture, were perceived by research participants severally as

‘increasing’ the integrity of research projects due to the shared goals, strength of the

exchanges and utility of the research output, or ‘decreasing’ the integrity of research

projects through losing academic authority over the direction of the research projects.

Through the research governance framework – SAB, TAG and research project meetings

– the lens was not on whether or not CSG should be allowed but how to produce cost-

effective solutions to the challenges of the emerging industry and decrease possible

harmful effects. This lens goes some way to neutralising the intractable political conflicts

within the groups of working researchers. Researchers report that they were motivated,

incentivised or ‘forced’ into engaging with industry counterparts throughout their research,

via meetings, project reporting and other mechanisms. For some researchers, industry

engagement was an essential element of their research methods, for others it was an

inconvenience or administrative burden or even a mechanism for challenging their

scientific independence. In the main, the researchers and industry representatives were

loosely coupled and there was no expectation of binding and permanent connections. The

168

focus was on delivering projects within budget and timeframes to answer specific

contemporary industry challenges.

Questions of whether CSG is harmful to people and the environment will not attract as

much funding and government /industry interest as multidisciplinary teams examining

technologies and industry practices through a mitigating lens. Multiple researcher

perspectives seem to satisfy more stakeholders through finding solutions which increase

productivity, decrease cost and harms; or satisfy none of the inflexible stakeholders. With

many government agencies and businesses not having the capacity or capability of

addressing common challenges faced by multiple actors in the CSG arena, university

researchers play a vital role in facilitating discussions and directing resources into

translating industry, government and community challenges into research questions and

collating data from multiple parties to analyse.

One of the strengths of having many researchers with industry representatives

investigating CSG concurrently is that individual researchers are more likely to be resilient

to external pressures (e.g. unrealistic deadlines brought by corporate timeframes) or have

their research activities unduly influenced by industry, unless enabled by the UQ-CCSG.

The process of having many researchers working on the same topic from different

disciplinary angles exposes people’s biases and provides opportunities to rectify them.

The politically charged nature of CSG means that attitudes and opinions towards the topic

are often entrenched. Having collective rather than individual responses is important. The

group approach to research ensures the relationships between the businesses and the

university, and the relationships among the researchers and industry representatives are

scrutinised and accountable to others involved.

5.3 Integrity of New ‘Boundary’ Technologies and Objects – from the fieldwork

As noted in the first chapter, research integrity is linked to an ethical condition and a

structural condition, soundness. UIE scholarship highlights the contribution of items,

routines and people to bridging the university-industry divide and solidifying the

partnership (Boehm & Hogan, 2014; Philbin, 2013). A frequently discussed challenge in

university-industry partnerships in UIE is that research findings and solutions are not easily

absorbed by industry partners as they do not fit with current business processes and

169

methods (K. Miller, McAdam, Moffett, et al., 2016). UQ-CCSG members have developed

various objects and technologies to support the partnership between members i.e. the

Celoxis project management software or ‘plug-ins’ of new algorithms for Petrel (the

standard exploration and production software used in the O&G industry). This in part was

driven by the Centre Director, who was previously employed in the industry for many

years. However, in contrast to the items produced that reinforced the links between UQ-

CCSG partners, research meetings exposed how items and toolkits developed were

developed by the UQ-CCSG for the public domain. The UQ-CCSG took on a ‘one-stop

shop’ communication role providing information to the public and government agencies

about the industry. That is instead of each individual business, government agencies or

the gas industry association (APPEA) assuming that role, e.g. talking to the media about

CSG activities, participating in community-based information sessions including ones

organised by Agforce, and creating public-facing sources of useful information like the

Boomtown Indicators project50. Not only did the UQ-CCSG members contribute to the

development of Boomtown Indicators toolkit but they also agreed to pay for the

maintenance and further development.

The example of the 3D CSG Water Atlas51 is a website which integrates a range of

groundwater chemistry, water level and geological data sources in a single platform for

visualising and analysing the data. The website responds to key public concerns about the

impact of the CSG industry on people and land, and particularly on the subsurface water.

Modelling the impacts of the industry on the surrounding lands and communities is

undertaken by the gas producers as part of their licencing process. Continual monitoring of

the production and impacts is an essential role of gas producers as part of their normal

operations. Other water users in the area, including the agricultural and mining industries

also track bore water chemistry, usage and levels. Until the Water Atlas was developed

the data was not shared on a common platform, nor was the data able to visually

interpreted. Water users were collecting similar data but not necessarily in the same

formats. Nevertheless, to ensure regulator and community confidence in specific wells, the

producers and the industry more broadly, some data sharing and oversight is needed

between CSG producers, regulators and scientists.

50 For more information about the UQ Boomtown Indicators Project see https://boomtown-toolkit.org/ 51 For more information about the Water Atlas see https://wateratlas.net/?page=Home

https://boomtown-toolkit.org/

https://wateratlas.net/?page=Home

170

Universities are potentially seen as impartial ‘honest brokers’ that ensure the quality and

broad dissemination of data to interested parties, as the university is not a regulator,

competitor or consultant contractor. The CSG Water Atlas brings together data from the

regulators and producers, and other freely available geospatial data, into an easily

accessible visual format. Partial data about subsurface water was held by many actors and

the need for consolidating and interpreting the collected data was identified by many

actors. However, to bring the various actors together, an objective, skilful, apolitical, non-

legally binding and non-commercial ‘safe space’ was needed. The ‘safe space’ was

needed to get the various actors together to define and agree to the data and user

requirements. The integrity of the websites – their interface, data security, quality and

analysis of the data – all contribute to demonstrating the integrity of industry-funded

research. The socialisation52 of the project and user-feedback loops ensure the continuing

integrity of the research project underpinning the website.

The CSG Water Atlas brings together multiple data sets about the chemistry, water level

and geology of water bores, demanding periodic data updates from government agencies

and companies. As data comes from various sources, inconsistencies can be identified

and investigated. Interested stakeholders can monitor the interactions of coal seam

hydrology and aquifers and refine water monitoring designs based on the latest data.

The continual use of the website by a variety of users ensures that the user-interface of

the website continues to be refined and the data visualisation capabilities extended.

The fieldwork revealed another example of a new tool created in the UQ-CCSG, that is the

quantification of the benefits, risks and costs of using a new material with which to plug

disused wells. As legislation stipulates what material should be used, a ‘scientific –

business – public interest case’ had to be developed to seek approval from the

government agency regulator to not only change the relevant regulations but also the flow-

on effects to long-term monitoring schemes (which are the joint responsibility of the

producers and the government). The approval process defined the timing of the

experiments, the volume and type of experimental data needed, and increased the number

of stakeholders that the researcher needed to engage with. How the principal investigator

52 Socialisation in this context is a term used by the research participants to refer to the creation and dissemination of the website through collaboration with key stakeholders – a process of learning, teaching and refining project attributes.

171

directed the research project, speaks to the complexity and resource-intensiveness of

maintaining and demonstrating research integrity throughout a multi-year research

translation process. Clarifying what research integrity governance was conducted during

the translation process and the organisational structures is worthy of closer examination

but is beyond the scope of this study.

5.4 Integrity of Relationships with external Stakeholders – from the fieldwork

Many explanations and prescriptions have emerged from the UIE literature about the

nature and responsibilities of UIRCs and the most efficient and beneficial structures. At UQ

there is a centralised marketing group, concerned with the public image of the university,

centrally controlling the branding, digital footprints, the name and reputation, ultimately, the

position in society. Rather than shielding itself from public scrutiny, the UQ-CCSG

embarked on a deft communications strategy, engaged a public relations firm to manage

the launch of the Centre and more recently employing a marketing manager, with a

background in issue-based communications. Like other units at UQ, the UQ-CCSG

received many prescriptions about how they should engage with external stakeholders

(including alumni, philanthropists, industry, community and other groups).

However, it was impossible to meet the expectations of all stakeholders. As the

scholarship conveys, “universities are concerned first of all with the needs of society,

which are the same as its desire … satisfying public demands is not the university’s

business: it is not a state-subsidized intellectual department store” (Ashby, 1944 quoted in

Forsyth, 2014). It is a challenge for the UQ-CCSG to embed the UQ branding into all

activities, along with acknowledging the financial and non-financial contributions of industry

members. The contributions of industry members could change from project to project. It is

also challenging for UQ-CCSG to have the capacity and capability to monitor, understand

and respond to community expectations about the activities being undertaken.

The way in which scientific expertise and facts are utilised in public debates bring

researchers into unfamiliar territory, especially if their previous research did not contribute

to unfolding public debates. The public debates about CSG highlight the fact that scientific

evidence on which to base policy-making and commercial decision-making is incomplete,

contradictory or incorrectly interpreted (Espig & de Rijke, 2016b). Sometimes, the

persuasive power of evidence does not quash continuing scientific and public debate

172

(Hardie et al., 2016). The significance of understanding and managing relationships with

external stakeholders is crucial within the CSG research arena. The fieldwork undertaken

by the researcher revealed numerous ways in which researchers and research groups

engage to develop research proposals, conduct research and coordinate activities. Also

revealed was how researchers and staff can compete and interfere with one another as

they vie for resources, reputation and access to data.

The politicised context and multi-pronged research agenda of UQ-CCSG ensures that the

integrity of relationships with external stakeholders contributes to research integrity.

However, the politicisation of research governance does not inherently lead to negative

consequences. Instead it can be seen as a process whereby stakeholders persistently

challenge established practices. The assumption here, is that the research governance

mechanisms and research practices are transparent and able to be understood by multiple

actors, and there is unimpeded access to research outputs (Hartley, Pearce, & Taylor,

2016). Additionally, the research outputs are accessible to expert and non-expert

audiences. The aim of the UIRCs should not be to avoid politically-sensitive or challenging

questions, but to recognise and ensure that the political dimensions of questions are open

to a broad range of stakeholder voices and that their values are visible. This notion of

universities creating ‘innovation spaces’ for multiple expertise and stakeholders resonates

with Alan Hughes’ observations (Cosh et al., 2006; Hughes & Kitson, 2012).

The call to ‘partner or perish’, that appeals to universities to engage more closely with

industry, has been perpetuated by UQ leadership since at least 2008 (Anonymous, 2008).

But some UQ researchers hold concerns that universities are being coerced into

collaborating with business partners thereby potentially undermining academic freedoms,

public values and the provision of public goods (Lyons, 2014). An easy way to preserve a

public appearance of autonomy and objectivity is to take a ‘Caesar’s wife’ approach, or to

avoid the implication of impropriety by banning industry money. For example, many

Australian universities have banned researchers from taking funds from tobacco

companies. Whether the ban on tobacco funding is due to institutions taking an ethical

position within the debates about tobacco research, or universities adhering to the

prevailing interests of cancer research funders, continues to be disputed. Nevertheless,

especially with the public policy and university goals of generating socially-relevant

173

knowledge, it is very difficult for university-based researchers to avoid entanglements with

financial, social and political interests. After all, research must be paid for by someone.

Many businesses are merely accountable to their owners, shareholders and regulators.

However, accountability is publicly conspicuous in the unconventional gas industry

discourse, as exemplified by the ‘accountability of countries that export fossil fuels’ to

climate change. There is also the ‘accountability of oil and gas companies for their impact

on the environment and society’, and the role of the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI)53

in the US in publicising reports of ‘frackademia’. In the context of unconventional gas

research, the issue of accountability is complicated by the large number of interested and

politically-savvy stakeholders internal and external to the organisation, the legal labyrinth

that accompanies an emergent industry, the risks and uncertainty implicit in the scope of

research, and the fact that the UIE function is not central to the operations of the gas

producers.

During the period of fieldwork undertaken in the CSG industry, there were several

initiatives from student and staff groups at the University Fossil Free54 and 350.org55,

requesting the university to divest from fossil fuels.56 Others initiatives, including those of

the UQ Environmental Collective and the UQ Climate for Change, argued that UQ needs

to consider how to be more transparent about the types of industries and companies it

partners with, and the forms of engagement it undertakes. However, UQ has a long history

of research partnerships and alliances with the mining sector (though UQ-CCSG would

see themselves as distinct from the mining sector) indicated by the purchase, in 1951, of a

former silver and lead mine in a nearby suburb to be used for experiments and teaching,

i.e. the establishment of the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre in 1970, and of JK

Tech, the mining-related TTO in 1986. One indignant SMI research participant was

opposed to other university members, corporate funders, bureaucrats and other

stakeholders exerting influence on the research that s/he found purposeful and necessary.

This statement speaks to the arbitrariness of academic freedom. It also speaks how some

53 For more information about the investigation into the US unconventional gas industry see the PAI website http://public-accountability.org/ (retrieved 10/11/2014) 54 See http://gofossilfree.org/. 55 See http://350.org.au/about/. 56 See https://www.uq.id.au/m.starkey/UQ_investments.htm and https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2016/10/uq-resolves-not-divest-fossil-fuels

http://public-accountability.org/

http://gofossilfree.org/

http://350.org.au/about/

https://www.uq.id.au/m.starkey/UQ_investments.htm

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2016/10/uq-resolves-not-divest-fossil-fuels

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2016/10/uq-resolves-not-divest-fossil-fuels

174

corporate-funded research is sidelined, via condemnation or constraint, by academics in

other fields.

The discourse surrounding CSG research echoes issues raised about nanotechnology

research. Scholars have shown how the scientists involved accept the dual responsibilities

of protecting the scientific endeavour from public ‘backlash’, politicians and de-funding,

and their responsibility as citizens to protect the environment and society through scientific

research. For example, McCarthy & Kelty (2010) found that,

the language of risk has failed, and in its place ideas about responsibility, prudence, and accountability for the future have emerged, along with new questions about the proper venues and 'modes of veridiction' by which claims about safety or responsibility might be scientifically adjudicated.

But unlike in the nanotechnology and biotechnology fields of research, there has been no

identifiable industry- or government- funded stream of research considering the ethical,

social and legal dimensions of unconventional gas extraction (except individual studies

i.eCotton, 2016; de Melo-Martín, Hays, & Finkel, 2014; Dignum, Correljé, Cuppen, Pesch,

& Taebi, 2015; Evensen, 2016). The fieldwork highlighted the fact that university

stakeholders have multiple ethical concerns about UIEs with the O&G industry, and more

particularly about the role of governments and universities in facilitating uncritical analysis

of the industry. This notion is supported by scholars who have argued that there needs to

be greater reflection on the realities of research partnership processes, particularly in the

context of climate change (e.g. (Orr & Bennett, 2012) and (Orecchini et al., 2012)).

Recent integrity management research shows that in contrast to the statements made by

the SMI researcher about the stifling effects of engagement with external stakeholders,

UIRCs’ relationships with external stakeholders contribute to ensuring the integrity of their

organisation, people and products. The integrity of the research partnership, and the

research produced, is assured through mechanisms such as sharing tools, instruments

and frameworks; sharing staff or to a lesser extent staff mobility; sharing knowledge or

sharing influence (Hoekstra, Talsma, & Kaptein, 2016). It follows that the integrity of UQ-

CCSG research, results not only from their own practices but is also informed by engaging

with other unconventional gas UIRCs and other research partners. An element of research

integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG is negotiating what the expectations of research

175

integrity with collaborators might involve. This is an area that offers ample opportunities for

future research.

There are expectations of universities to lead the transformation of society and many

universities are putting in place resources and structures to more fully engage with a

myriad of external stakeholders (Barnett, 2016). While some direct their efforts at industry

engagement, others are embracing CSR measures (e.g. University of Technology Sydney

and their Social Impact Framework57 and the University of Edinburgh 58 or disengaging

from some controversial industries (e.g., Stanford University divesting from coal)59.

University leaders have a broad range of ambitions for themselves and their institutions,

and the pace of change is rapid. Many of these strategic decisions about how universities

engage lie in the historical roots of the university and the influence of university leaders.

Two interviewees spoke of the lack of clear UQ positioning with regard to its role and

responsibilities regarding climate change (e.g. UQ has a whole-of-university sustainability

policy 60 that supports the Global Change Institute and clean energy 61 but at the same

time it shows support for SMI, ACARP-funded research and other long-term ties with

fossil-fuel producers). Thus, for some, establishing the UQ-CCSG not only falls short of

expectations of UQ as an agent for change and a visionary in the arena of climate change,

but also falls short of expectations that UQ be the university to engage with the challenges

facing local communities e.g. in attempting to rectify community inequities furthered by the

establishment of the CSG industry (Makki & van Vuuren, 2016).

57 For more information about the Social Impact Framework of the University of Technology see https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/welcome/social-impact-framework 58 For more information about the Sustainability Framework of the University of Edinburgh see https://www.ed.ac.uk/about/sustainability 59 Stanford University will divest its US$18.7 billion endowment of coal mining interests http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/divest-coal-trustees-050714.html. The University of Edinburgh was the first university in Europe to establish a University Social Responsibility and Sustainability Unit to coordinate activity campus-wide in 2014, and the second university globally to join to the GRI. It has come under fire as the university in the UK with the 3rd largest fossil fuel investments through their endowment funds. 60 For more information about UQ’s Sustainability Framework see https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/ 61 The Global Change Institute was established in 2010 to address the impacts of climate change and population growth through collaborative research across themes such as clean energy, food systems, and healthy oceans.

https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/social-justice-uts/welcome/social-impact-framework

https://www.ed.ac.uk/about/sustainability

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/divest-coal-trustees-050714.html

https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/

176

5.5 Integrity of the UIRC organisation – from the fieldwork

The UQ-CCSG was established with big ambitions – to create a Centre of Excellence to

export Queensland’ knowledge of CSG to the world (Moran, 2012). Predictably, as the

UQ-CCSG became established, it grew like a small business by: initiating a marketing and

communications plan; re-branding as part of the University’s Energy Research Group

rather than of SMI (mining-focussed); developing domestic and international networks;

seeking new sources of funding; and developing a corporate identity (Rivers & Gray,

2013). As the group of potential stakeholders in UQ-CCSG research is wide and diverse, it

was important for the Centre to project a succinct organisational identity, one with integrity

– especially so, considering the challenges to the integrity of the UQ-CCSG outlined in

Section 1.6.

The UQ-CCSG is developing a network of relationships and building a corporate image. In

this setting, UIRCs are expected to demonstrate their own organisational integrity, e.g. that

the entity is continuing, with assessable research capabilities and resources, and with

appropriate structures and practices. As noted in Chapter Four, one of the significant

reasons for establishing and maintaining the integrity of the UQ-CCSG, is that membership

of the UQ-CCSG is a mechanism for the CSG producers to fulfil their licencing

responsibilities toward the Queensland Government. The continuing financial and legal

integrity of the UQ-CCSG is crucial to demonstrate research integrity within some

Queensland Government agencies.

As the CSG-LNG developments are a world first, the UQ-CCSG is positioning itself as an

authority or expert in the field. In fact, some research participants observed that their

research was frequently identified with the UQ-CCSG, as opposed to themselves as

individuals, or the faculty, institute or university in which they are located. Other UQ

researchers researching themes related to CSG but not receiving funding or being aligned

with the Centre, are particularly sensitive about being thought to be affiliated with the

Centre, as this would bias their research.

The fieldwork undertaken for this thesis revealed the importance of specialised and

coherent UQ-CCSG organisational arrangements in safeguarding the integrity of industry-

funded research. As boundaries between industry, academia and government are

177

becoming increasingly blurred, it is difficult to separate the interests of all the parties. To

put this in another way, it is difficult for those outside specific disciplinary spaces, to

separate the research processes and findings from expectations of undue influence.

Several interviewees spoke of the ‘bravery’ of researchers undertaking research for the

CSG industry in the Brisbane-based social context, where there is little support for the

industry. The CSG scholarship supports this notion that other academics and university

workers, in addition to industry-funding, play a significant role in supporting or undermining

academic freedoms. That is the academic establishment is open to bias and has the

power the influence research agendas. For example, there are claims that some climate

change and hydraulic fracturing researchers are not directly biased by financial

arrangements with firms; but rather, the entire academic establishment is biased by being

sufficiently politicised to channel research work in particular directions by professional

rewards structures, i.e., access to funding, publishing, professional recognition (Curry,

2017; Schiffman, 2013 ). As the focus of the UQ-CCSG research agenda is about

improving industry productivity and mitigating negative impacts, there are various UQ staff

and students who believe the entire UQ-CCSG research agenda is flawed. They believe

the initial question should be whether or not to have an industry in Queensland or

Australia.

The interviews also revealed that there is a lack of clarity about apportioning responsibility

for demonstrating research integrity between the research managers, professional staff,

researchers, HDR students and the members of the governing board and groups. The

significance of formalising expected behaviours and explicitly defining the rules and

responsibilities for research integrity across the research group echo the findings of

Nguyen and Meek (2015). They contend that there are four formal mechanisms in

Australian universities for driving research behaviour, including: 1) job descriptions and

codes of conduct; 2) rules and procedures for managing the lifecycle of a research project;

3) evaluation mechanisms to evaluate the quality of research outcomes; and 4) rules for

research integrity. While there are mechanisms for all four driven from central university

offices, each is interpreted and implemented locally within research groups, like the UQ-

CCSG.

One of the research participants suggested that the JV contract between UQ-CCSG

members meant that they were only accountable to the university employers and the firm

178

shareholders. However, this point was disputed by others who saw that UQ-CCSG was

accountable to not only the firms, but also to the university (a key stakeholder), the higher

education regulator, other staff and students, the State Government and the local

community. Scholars support the notion that the second interpretation of accountability is

more representative of UIRCs in contemporary Australian universities (Baird, 2011;

Mahmud & Bretag, 2013). UIRCs operate in a quasi-market space where the expectations

about public accountability of universities are changing. While most Australian universities

are not public sector agencies, there are public accountability obligations set out in the

enabling acts and other legislation. There are various public and market-based forms of

accountability, and the main trend is for increased accountability to the Federal

Government, fee-paying students and the public. This is unlike the prescribed standards

and public accountability demanded of third-party teaching programs through the Higher

Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 and third-party research

programs; i.e., UIRCs work within a complex overlap of public and market-based

accountability mechanisms. The UQ-CCSG assumes responsibility for accountability in

various spheres, either directly or as a constituent of UQ.

Stakeholder trust relates to the integrity, capability, intention and results of organisational

activities, so intuitively creating a UIRC that operates with integrity will go towards

demonstrating research integrity to a broad range of stakeholders (Covey & Merrill, 2006).

The significance of branding, organisational identities and public relations for universities

and UIRCs, supports the notion that organisational integrity is inextricably linked to

demonstrating research integrity to stakeholders (Aula, Tienari, & Wæraas, 2015;

Boardman et al., 2013; Chapleo, 2015; Drori, Delmestri, & Oberg, 2015)


Multiple scandals have led to intensified scepticism around the behaviour of the O&G

industry and its partnerships with universities (Bridgman, 2009; R. J. Davies &

Herringshaw, 2016; Mintz, Savage, & Carter, 2010). However, closer examination of the

UQ-CCSG reveals a complex system of research integrity governance. The fieldwork

confirmed that there are five elements of research integrity governance occurring in the

UQ-CCSG as per Table 15 below.

179

Table 15: Five Elements of Research Integrity Governance

Element Champions Activities / Interventions

Integrity of Scientific

Process

Office of Research Integrity

Library (Research

Management)

Ethics Review Committees

UQ-CCSG Professors

Compulsory Training

Supervision

Ethics Approval

Adherence to UQ policies / regulations

Conduct research with rigor and objectivity

Management of research data

Citation of others / acknowledgement of contribution

Supervision

Authorship

Peer review

Accuracy of Grant Proposals

Raising issues of concerns about integrity of research

Integrity of UIE Partnership

and creation of valuable

output for members of the

partnership

SAB & TAG Members

Legal Office

Office of Research

Partnerships

Researchers

Research Manager

HDR Students

Adherence to JV contract

Organisational Conflicts of Interest

Acquittal of funds

Project Management Reporting

Conduit for Firms to access UQ researchers

Raising issues of concerns about integrity of research

Trust-building

Scholarly Writing / Publication

Policy Contribution / Submissions

Technology

Popular Writing

Process Improvements

Testing

Sharing of Research Data

Integrity of ‘boundary

items’

Senior UQ, Government and

Firm staff

Quality control

Testing

Outsourcing to professionals

Integrity of UIRC

Organisation

Centre Manager

UQ Vendor Manager in Firms

Faculty WHS Manager

UQ Enterprise Risk Manager

Reporting / Accounting

Working Safely

Workforce Management

Integrity of relationships

with Stakeholders

All UQ-CCSG staff / UQ

marketing and PR staff

Demonstrated respect for participants, animals,

environment

Grievance / Feedback Mechanism

Community events

Maintenance of website & databases

Responsive to media and government enquiries

Proactively correct the public record

The fieldwork revealed the establishment the UQ-CCSG had its origins in the rapid

expansion of a nascent industry, was embedded in community resistance and born of the

desire to quantify the uncertainties inherent in CSG production. As Randall writes, there is

substantial uncertainty about the impacts of the CSG industry, which raises explicit issues

of risk management for all those involved (Alan Randall, 2012). In this dynamic,

competitive and highly-scrutinised operating environment, research integrity is

fundamental for the continuation of the UQ-CCSG. The UIE literature drew attention to

significance of research organisations supporting researcher balance their relationships

180

with their employers and funders, scientific norms, research subjects, researchers’

professional affiliations, other researchers (peers and juniors), students, and society more

broadly (Section 2.4). Closer examination of the UQ-CCSG revealed the co-existence of

four approaches to research (Table 14: Categorisation of UQ-CCSG Research

Approaches ) and the pluralism of stakeholders (Appendix 2: Stakeholders with interests in

the CSG industry). Together these point to a conceptualisation of research integrity as

being a set of principles and practices shaped by dominance, discussions and trade-offs.

181

6 Chapter Six – The UQ-CCSG and the Provisional Model for Research Integrity

6.0 Preamble

The objective of this chapter is to examine the extent to which the Provisional Model

posited at Figure 4 describes the approaches to research integrity governance pursued in

the UQ-CCSG. The fieldwork generally reinforces the idea that universities have three key

strategies to safeguard the integrity of industry-funded research: identifying and punishing

scientific misconduct; promoting research integrity values; and protecting the scientific

record. The case of UQ-CCSG identifies the adaptions of approaches identified in the

Provisional Model and reveals additional ones. Further approaches identified include: 1)

building trust among partnership members; 2) demonstrating responsiveness to public

concerns; and 3) being transparent, open, and accepting of responsibility. Learnings from

the fieldwork also supported other notions revealed in the scholarship such as: that

research integrity is shaped by a myriad of external influencing factors from the university

and local operating context to which the UQ-CCSG work is adjusting. New patterns of

knowledge exchange, structural changes to the higher education sector, growth of UIE and

increasing scrutiny of university research by a variety of stakeholders, ensure that UIRC

governance approaches to research integrity are essential, dynamic and context-specific.

This chapter is divided into eight sections. Section 1 provides more detail about the

operating context. Sections 2-4 discuss how the UQ-CCSG’s approach to research

integrity conforms to the Provisional Model and considers if, and in what manner, the

provisional model at Figure 4 needs to be revised. The three additional organisational

approaches are discussed in Sections 5-7 of this chapter. The concluding remarks in

Section 8 draw together insights about research integrity approaches together with insights

from the previous chapter. Together these sections provide the foundation for a revised

model of research integrity, which is presented in next chapter, Chapter Seven.

6.1 The Operating Context

Although located on a university campus, the UQ-CCSG is characterised by its own

unique operations, assuming only some of the organisational goals, culture and structures

182

of the university and CSG producers. As a UQ research centre, UQ-CCSG is evaluated

externally in terms of its teaching quality and outputs, research quality and outputs,

responsiveness to industry and government requests, how its research outputs are utilised

(including patents and licencing), and the its research impacts. Considerable and

continuous efforts are made by Centre staff to decode and synchronise multiple goals and

priorities, create coordinated strategies and clarify shared priorities with the UQ-CCSG

members. The existing scholarship has highlighted the importance of routines and

technological solutions to managing research partnerships (Garousi, Petersen, & Ozkan,

2016) e.g. through project management software and the monitoring and evaluation of

mechanisms. Somewhat surprisingly given UQ’s objectives in expanding UIE, there were

no university-wide solutions for project management methodology, financial reporting and

evaluation for partners and these were created or procured within UQ-CCSG itself.

The case of the UQ-CCSG confirms how research conducted at universities is changing.

While the objective of commercialising research is a constant refrain throughout UQ,

mirroring national and multilateral policy frameworks, it is only a small element of the work

taking place in the UQ-CCSG (Guellec, 2013; Yusuf & Nabeshima, 2007). Key functions of

the UQ-CCSG are to commission and manage a portfolio of research projects undertaken

by researchers based within their own institute or faculty research groups. Additionally,

various meetings and activities provide CSG actors from government, university and

industry ‘safe’ spaces to meet, share knowledge and translate industry challenges into

scholarly research questions. The UQ-CCSG staff stimulate and facilitate conversations to

translate common challenges facing industry into research questions, prioritise research

projects and activities, share insights about tactical responses to events, i.e., about the

launch of National Energy Resources Australia (NERA), the review of the Gasfields

Commission or about methane emissions research from Southern Cross University.

How the research output of the UQ-CCSG is evaluated, highlights how policy and

programmatic changes within the higher education system in Australia shape research

governance. For example, changes to the metrics collected from universities in the Higher

Education Research Data Collection, National Survey on Research Commercialisation,

Excellence in Research in Australia, the Engagement and Impact Assessment (2018) all

shape the what data is collected by UQ-CCSG in addition the reporting requirements of its

partners. In the UQ-CCSG the annual membership subscription is often referred to in

183

terms of firm investment. Research projects are created and selected by the members (a

group of university, government and industry representatives) who direct projects towards

creating ‘value’ for CSG stakeholders. UQ-CCSG members receive periodic updates on

their investment and expenditures and of identification of projects for future ‘value

creation.’ The focus on finding ‘value’ for UQ-CCSG suggests that what is now called

‘university engagement’ or ‘collaboration’, involves shifting the ‘value’ of universities from

research for scientific progress or from individual researcher interests that costs ‘public

monies’, to finding value for UIRC members. As suggested by (Lehtimaki & Peltonen,

2013), although CSG is a significant industry in Queensland and a key political and

community challenge, the UQ-CCSG, instead of gaining a high-power position, is

dependent upon a variety of other actors, who define what passes as pertinent knowledge

of and expertise in the CSG industry. Together the following six good governance

approaches to research integrity discovered in the UQ-CCSG, provide an initial answer to

the third research question, “What good governance measures could support the integrity

of industry-funded research?”

6.2 Identify and punish scientific misconduct - predicted by the Provisional Model

Generally, researchers funded by the UQ-CSSG continue to be ensconced within their

‘home base’ school, centre or institute where there may or may not have been any focus

on developing a research integrity culture beyond compliance. Thus, apart from the few

senior UQ-CCSG staff, most of those who have joint appointments with other faculties and

institutes, and most researcher relationships with the UQ-CCSG are short-term. Therefore,

many researchers do not have a longer-term identification with the Centre and are not

necessarily looking to engage with the specific research integrity issues relating to CSG

research beyond university compliance and industry-acceptance for their specific CSG

projects. As required by their employment or HRD candidate contracts with the university,

the researchers comply with the research integrity requirements, e.g., participation in

research integrity training and approval through relevant Human Research Ethics

Committee (HREC) approval processes.

During the fieldwork period, the researcher generally found that the onus was on the

higher education regulators, research councils and universities to set standards and

values, aligning where possible with professional bodies’ codes of conduct. In the case of

UQ, the Research Integrity Framework is directed by the Office of Research Integrity. The

184

Research Integrity Framework includes interpreting the standards set by the regulators

and research council into relevant policies and mechanisms for the university, e.g. by

establishing HREC approval processes and by embedding networks of academic

‘research integrity’ staff into faculty and institute structures and training programs. On the

other hand, it also includes mechanisms to monitor compliance, whistleblowing and

grievance, and to sanction breaches. Thus, in broad terms, the ‘home base’ facilities and

institute in which researchers are employed and that they contribute to, are responsible for

the ‘microethics’ of research integrity; whereas the ‘macroethics’ of CSG research is

largely left to the UQ-CCSG to consider.

Other pertinent policies relate to researchers’ adherence to the employees’ Code of

Conduct, Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) and the enterprise agreement to ‘maintain

the public confidence in the university’. Particularly, the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994

(Qld) emphasises the key ethical principles that are relevant to ensuring the integrity of

industry-funded research, which indicate that staff should 1) act ethically; 2) act with

independence and impartiality; 3) show respect to colleagues, students and others; 4)

acknowledge the primacy of the public interest; and 5) be committed to public engagement

as outlined in UQ’s policy and procedures library (University of Queensland, 2018).

Together, these five principles suggest a basis for creating a UIRC where there is

purposeful engagement with matters of public interest and for evaluating the impact of the

CSG on the land and people.

Previous research, however, has found that many people in Australian universities do not

identify with the tenets of public service or recognise that they owe a public duty to the

community. They also lack awareness of conflict of interest issues as they work within a

continuing culture of keeping problems “in-house” (Crime and Misconduct Commission,

2013) That said, notions of personal, scientific and organisational integrity gained

prominence within UQ from 2012. Details of university leaders’ and researchers’

misconduct became known and organisational responses were enacted, e.g. there was

the investigation by the Crime and Misconduct Commission and University’s Integrity and

Accountability Reform Program launched in May 2012. From 2012, there have been many

policy and procedural changes at UQ with regards to research integrity, ensuring there is a

comprehensive research integrity framework in place.

185

6.3 Promote research integrity values – predicted by the Provisional Model

The University of Queensland has an Office of Research Integrity which promotes

research integrity through providing training and advice to researchers, whether staff or

students, as discussed in Section 5.1. The ideas of research integrity were of interest to

UQ-CCSG, demonstrated by: their funding of this project that involved the researcher in ad

hoc discussions with researchers from the Centre about research integrity; their reporting

of progress in the research project at formal research reporting sessions; and by their

becoming a key case study in the national report for the EU Horizon Responsible

Research and Innovation Practice project (Sehic & Ashworth, 2018)

However, UIRCs are not merely smaller versions of universities sharing the same

organisational culture. As the case of the UQ-CCSG illustrates, some UIRCs are small and

fragile entities operating in an evolving policy environment (Barker, 2015). The UQ-CCSG,

whilst consumed with the day-to-day operations of managing research projects, responds

to the uncertainties of the CSG industries, engaging and competing with other research

providers for reputation and resources and navigating unsettled industry-community

relationships. The case shows that UIRCs become peculiar entities with their own

identities and reputations, perhaps with more in common with UIRCs established by the

same funding companies than with other UIRCs at the university at which they are located.

The responsibility for promoting ‘microethic’ elements of research integrity mainly lies with

the centrally-located Office of Research Integrity and the local research integrity adviser

located in SMI in the case of the UQ-CCSG.

The responsibility for promoting notions about the ‘macroethical’ elements of CSG

research, or the implications of research on society sits with senior staff in the UQ-CCSG,

particularly the Director. Examples of macro ethical issues considered in the context of the

UQ-CCSG were focussing research efforts into areas of industry, regulator and public

concern including how to mitigate the impact of industrial processes on water supply and

quality (and the existing agricultural industries), quantifying the benefits gained from CSG

and how they are distributed within communities, learning from examples of procedural

injustices including negotiating land access agreements, exposing examples of

communities and workers being exposed to involuntary risks and losing their sense of

place and community attachment.

186

6.4 Protecting the scientific and public record - partially predicted by the scholarship

The UIE scholarship has predicted that protecting and correcting the scientific record is a

key element of research integrity. During the researcher’s fieldwork, the administrative

staff of the UQ-CCSG, especially the Director and the Research Manager, insisted on

comprehensive data management and sharing strategies for many projects and industry

and peer review of publications. As expected, if there were cases of academic or research

misconduct, details were not shared within the group. There was one case that the

researcher became aware of, and there were attempts to refer the case back to the HREC

for a response and solution.

How universities engage with industry partners in technoscientific controversies differs

from other forms of engagement because of one key factor - the existence of controversy

itself, which involves the existence of competing positions in different arenas - scientific,

policy, media and opinion. Scientific and technical research matters can become

intertwined with political, economic, social, ethical and other issues. There is no universally

accepted truth; only research findings which are largely agreed to by researchers and

stakeholders alike. As a controversy unfolds, rather than confronting an intractable policy

controversy such as that surrounding abortion, the CSG debate has no well-defined rules

and there are no authoritative referees to enforce appropriate behaviour. Researchers in

the CSG debate are aware that their work differs from that of other highly politicised UIE

research arenas such as gambling and pharmaceuticals because the interest groups are

not delineated along traditional patterns, and there are cycles of intense media scrutiny. A

study of more than 31,000 news articles from the US and Australian media about

unconventional gas published between 1996-2013 showed that debates in Australia began

intensifying in early 2008 and peaked in late 2011 (Mitchell & Angus, 2016). Characterising

unconventional gas as the most toxic and polarised public controversy in Australia at the

time, the study identified more than 7000 individual stakeholders and ‘stakeseekers’ in the

news data between 2008-2013. Thus, the growing knowledge base about CSG contributes

to an unfolding and seemingly unresolvable technoscientific controversy, which is

particularly contentious for those outside the industry.

The UQ-CCSG encourages researchers to publish their findings in internationally

recognised, peer-reviewed journals. However, unlike other UIRCs, they do not stipulate

187

that all peer-reviewed publications must be distributed via open access and that the

expenses related to Open Access publishing be included in budget proposals. In contrast,

all peer-reviewed ReFINE papers are made freely available through green or gold open

access (R. J. Davies & Herringshaw, 2016). The UQ-CCSG website also stipulates that

the publication of some findings may be subject to commercial confidentiality, which is as

stipulated in the JV contract. The website goes on to state that “all journal papers and

project reports from the Centre for Coal Seam Gas (CCSG) have been published without

anything being labelled confidential.” However, this does not include student theses,

several of which are embargoed. Due to normal publishing timeframes, there is often a

considerable time lag between the research results being finalised then shared with

members of the public (through access to academic journals, which are frequently behind

paywalls).

The media stories that have accompanied the growth of the CSG industry in Queensland

have shown that unconventional gas is highly contested, and that the media plays a pivotal

role in framing the debate. Recent community surveys administrated by CSIRO confirm

that there is no single community view on CSG, with 68 percent of respondents saying

they either “tolerated” or “accepted” it, while minorities “embraced” it or “rejected” it. Most

respondents have a moderate or lukewarm view about CSG developments, and the 2016

survey showed that on average there was a tendency towards more negative views than in

2014 (A. Walton et al., 2016). Although the report did not make any references to the role

of the media in animating the debate, other commentators have noted the influencing role

of the popular press. “On balance, media reporting appears to be more anti-CSG than pro-

CSG, most likely because this is the side of the debate that makes a better story and

garners more interest” (M. Taylor, Sandy, & Raphel, 2013:18).

The integrity of scientific processes relies not just on the passive collection, analysis and

dissemination of data but on the critique of others’ research, intellectual engagement with

the issues and in the case of CSG, engagement with the surrounding public. As the Centre

was being established, one objective for the geoscientists and petroleum engineers was to

engage with findings about coalbed methane (CBM) production in the US, as well as coal

mining and underground coal gasification. This was to identify and highlight the differences

between the scientific record and the Queensland situation. The research sought to

characterise the coal seams from the molecular to the basin level. While extending global

188

knowledge about the location and extraction of coalbed methane, it also had the effect of

responding to some opponents of CSG in the public sphere. Academic or government

research about shale gas production emanating in the U.S or coal mining more globally,

was frequently referred to in the social media but was not necessarily transferable to the

Queensland context. The research had the effect of refining the modelling around water

use in production, initially proposed by the firms and regulators. Excessive water use in

production was a key public issue, especially in agricultural areas with drought / flooding

cycles (Duncan, Garnett, & Underschultz, 2015; Underschultz, Vink, & Garnett, 2018).

6.5 Build trust among partnership members

Research integrity is supported by the implementation of trust-building strategies to build

trust within the group and to build others’ trust in the group. The UQ-CCSG involves

cooperation and coordination among a broad array of unrelated people. The ethical

standards including those for justice, transparency, accountability and trust which underpin

research integrity, are vital in interorganisational partnerships. The UQ-CCSG partnership

was strengthened by members’ shared interest in understanding the nature of CSG and

the growing trust between Centre members. During interviews, many individuals spoke of

their personal and financial commitment to the UQ-CCSG partnership and success of the

Queensland’s CSG industry more broadly. Two interviewees spoke at length of the value

gained as both an individual, and on behalf of their firm, in having a forum at UQ-CCSG to

discuss common production challenges (technical and social) with peers. Having a

demarcated group of researchers from university, industry and government working

together, or separately contributing to a shared goal e.g. characterising underground water

flows, was deemed to be of utmost importance to various UQ-CCSG members.

One interviewee labelled UQ-CCSG as an example of precompetitive research e.g.

collaborative research by firms which are normally competitors for the purposes of

developing new commercially applicable technologies. However, the nature UQ-CCSG

does not satisfy the definition of precompetitive research in many ways. First, the key

output for the UQ-CCSG is not a new technology in most research projects; rather, its

projects focus on extending knowledge of CSG from the molecular through to the basin

level. This underpins company productivity, regulation and policy-making and its desire to

share knowledge with local landholders and other interested stakeholders. Second, the

corporate members of the UQ-CCSG competes for customers in the traditional sense. As

189

one interviewee bantered, CSG producers’ real customers are the Queensland

landholders and others impacted by exploration and production. These ‘customers’ grant

the industry’s social licence to operate. Rather, the UQ-CCSG members are competitors

for supplies, skilled labour and the attention of the regulator, especially during the

construction phase of the industry.

Some study participants referred to the idea that the UQ-CCSG was launched in a high-

scrutiny and low-trust environment (Gillespie et al., 2016; Leonard et al., 2016; McCrea et

al., 2016; Rifkin et al., 2014; A. M. Walton et al., 2013). The three LNG plants were built in

Gladstone around the same time, as stated in Table 12, creating competition for labour,

resources and market. The regulators and industry also had to develop a trusting

relationship with one another as the Queensland Government had implemented an

‘adaptive management’ framework for the environmental regulation of the industry,

necessitating strong monitoring and feedback loops (I. Cronshaw & R. Q. Grafton, 2016; I.

G. Cronshaw & R. Q. Grafton, 2016; Swayne, 2012; Turton, 2015). In this context it was

necessary to build a functional and trusting network between the gas producers

themselves at one level, and between the industry, regulators and the university at another

level.

UIE scholarship confirms the importance of trust and solidarity between members of

UIRCs, potentially to the exclusion of others (Bozeman et al., 2016; Bruneel et al., 2010;

Alessandro Muscio & Vallanti, 2014; Plewa, Korff, Baaken, et al., 2013; Plewa, Korff,

Johnson, et al., 2013). In contrast, engaged scholarship and the RRI literature promotes

the notion that it is socially irresponsible not to have participatory and representative

decision-making making in university research (Stahl, 2012; Stilgoe et al., 2013; von

Schomberg, 2013). Fieldwork revealed a hybrid system whereby UQ-CCSG members,

especially industry members, were encouraged to provide input into the objectives and

design of potential research projects through the series of SAB, TAG and specific research

group meetings. All projects must be approved by SAB; however, industry members of

SAB are unable to prevent a project from proceeding, nor do they have editorial control

over research outcomes other than through the preview processes already discussed

earlier in this chapter.

190

The restricted membership or ‘closed’ circle of the UQ-CCSG, nevertheless, has been

concerning to several outside the organisations. Non-permeable boundaries around the

membership of the UQ-CCSG are engendered by the membership rules, including

members’ commitment to fund the Centre to the amount of AUD$2.5 million over five-

years. This organisational structure automatically excludes many potential participants

from community organisations, government agencies (unless invited to participate without

paying membership fees) and other research organisations in the decision-making

mechanisms of the Centre. The idea that the UQ-CCSG could be supporting the

institutionalisation of a government-industry elite as the CSG industry becomes

established in Queensland, is supported by economists (Lahn & Stevens, 2017). The

protests and social media activities of the Research Integrity Coalition and the National

Union of Students suggest that some stakeholders will not accept the legitimacy of the

UQ-CCSG nor its research findings, as opponents of the industry have no direct

representation within the governance structures of the Centre.

The bounded membership of the UQ-CCSG can also be a manifestation of the secrecy

and privacy which is found across the O&G industry (Appel, Mason, & Watts, 2015)

(Mason, 2015b; Mason & Stoilkova, 2012). Anthropologists investigating the advent of the

CSG industry in Queensland point to a myriad of restrictions and secrecy found across the

CSG industry, e.g. confidentiality clauses in company and government staff employment

contracts, landholders and native title holders in Conduct and Compensation Agreements

(CCAs) and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). The UQ-CCSG JV agreement is

another example of an agreement not available in the public domain.

6.6 Demonstrate responsiveness to public concerns

The revised model extends the scope of UIE value, not only to include the industry

members of the UIRC partnership but also to include the wider stakeholders and the

public. The fieldwork revealed that three university functions, namely UIE, public

engagement and research integrity, come together in the UQ-CCSG. The merging of the

functions requires additional resources to combine them e.g. marketing and

communication staff which can refer to issues-based engagement rather than branding

exercises, as central Marketing and Communication units focus on.

191

Macroeconomic conditions are important for UIE. At the firm and university level,

engagement is partly explained by the organisational characteristics and microeconomic

factors. However, the establishment, operations and conclusion of UIE partnerships can

be significantly influenced by the performance of the macroeconomy in which the UIE is

situated, i.e., the lowering of gas prices was seen to be a precursor to the merger and

acquisition activity of UQ-CCSG members, driving the need for being able to account for

the value of the UQ-CCSG to members, and for defining the dollar amount that member

firms were willing to contribute. Another key influence on the decision-making of UQ-

CCSG were the expansive project costs. The APLNG project announced a US$1.3 billion,

or seven percent overrun whilst the QCLNG project witnessed an additional US$ 5 billion

of unplanned costs (Jerad A Ford et al., 2014). Commentators suggest that the contraction

of the industry after the overruns of the construction phase will mean that firms’

engagement with universities will lessen, reducing the size of firm graduate programs for

geoscientists and engineers and withdrawing from non-mission critical research programs

(Betz, 2015; Gewin, 2016). The closure of the Master of Science and Petroleum

Engineering program dual-badged with Herriot Watt University and the subsequent re-

structure of the suite of Master of Engineering programs to include a specialisation in

Petroleum engineering reflected the changing education needs of the industry.

The Queensland version of the ‘unconventional gas boom’ highlights that there are

multiple possible pathways for CSG research and innovation to occur. Significant new

university initiatives, including UIE arrangements, are produced by various mutually

reinforcing drivers including, but not limited to the policy context, university and company

leadership, resources and individual entrepreneurship (Dodgson & Staggs, 2012).

Queensland is now the home to a CSG industry that is sufficiently large to supply three

LNG plants and contribute to the domestic eastern seaboard market. Another Australian

state, Victoria, has banned hydraulic fracturing and other states are continuing to consider

their options. These decisions highlight the claim that innovation pathways for CSG and

the opportunities for UIE have socio-political dimensions. Queensland universities were

always going to be better positioned than their inter-state counterparts to develop research

partnerships with the industry due to their local knowledge and contacts. What is more

difficult to interpret, is whether Queensland universities and researchers’ connections with

the industry are being interpreted by regulators and other scientific organisations as having

192

lost their independence and rigour. Unfortunately, this notion is beyond the scope of this

work.

The UQ-CCSG responded to public interest in CSG in a variety of ways, first, via the

creation and continuing development of items for use by multiple groups of stakeholders

i.e. the Boomtown Toolkit, 3D Water Atlas and Onshore Gas Research Directory. Second,

they responded via demonstration of the integrity of the UIRC organisation through

financial accountability, timely reporting of research findings and other activities,

reasonable researcher / staff / student relations, formal and informal grievance

mechanisms, consistent messaging about positioning with CSG debates, coordinating

public events in conjunction with other actors in the CSG space, and contribution to the

public debate through submissions to government enquiries. Third, they responded by

creating and maintaining relationships with a broad array of stakeholders contributing to

the CSG industry or impacted landholders, producers, service companies and other

researchers.

6.7 Transparency, openness, accepting responsibility

Much CSG research was conducted by the O&G industry, or for the industry, is kept

behind paywalls of professional and industry organisations e.g. APPEA, the Petroleum

Exploration Society of Australia (PESA) and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

Proponents and opponents of the CSG industry seek to utilise research findings to support

their positions, potentially distorting or exaggerating the benefits or minimising the harms

and risks. Industry funders seek to gain a comparative advantage from their research

collaborations, commonly through intellectual property rights and talent identification.

Additionally, they seek to advance notice of research findings in order to manage the risks

and benefits associated with research supporting or not supporting their commercial

interests. The practices of the UQ-CCSG demonstrates the tension between confidentiality

and transparency in reporting research findings. A search of the UQ ‘epsace’ publication

repository highlights that numerous PhD projects are not able to be openly accessed.

The SMI at UQ requires all Higher Degree Research (HDR) students to adhere to

confidentiality agreements as there are likely to be, but are not necessarily, university-

industry contractual arrangements in place. On the other hand, social researchers

sometimes use methodologies which need disclosure and transparency. Some such

193

methods involve the ongoing communication and refining of research findings with the

research participants. Additionally, the University publicly supports the expansion of the

Open-access (OA) movement around the world.62 In this working environment, how

research projects are ‘socialised’ is significant. Of particular interest, is how governance

arrangements ensure the saliency and legitimacy of industry-funded research in various

non-science settings, including commercial decision-making, the media, government

policy-making and the law (Freckelton, 2016; Pielke, 2007).

The growth of university research and teaching audit and accountability cultures has

resulted from the introduction of a national regulatory system for higher education institutions

(Baird, 2011), higher representation of private sector interests on university governing

boards (Shattock, 2013) and the continuing top-down or centralised orientation that is a

widely acknowledged characteristic of Australian universities (Shin & Harman, 2009). This

is contributing to the growing demand on researchers for data and documentation of

performance, impact and other metrics. The researcher’s fieldwork revealed that the UQ-

CCSG was aiming for consensus among the university members informally and formally

within the TAG and SAB structures with regards to study designs, data collection and

analysis and reporting.


Universities are minor stakeholders in the rapidly changing oil and gas sector, as trainers,

as providers of ground-breaking research and scientific evidence into public policy

processes, and as critics. Nevertheless, within Queensland at present, CSG is having

enormous impact. CSG continues to be a divisive industry, as illustrated by the moratoria

on unconventional gas seen in other Australian States, localised bans in parts of the US

and Canada, and national moratoria in France and Bulgaria.63 The UQ-CCSG is a product

of the controversy.

62 Open-access (OA) literature is accessible online, free of charge and without most copyright and licensing restrictions. OA removes permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions) and price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) 63 For a list of national and subnational government regions with bans and moratoriums on fracking see http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/ For examples of discussions regarding energy security and unconventional gas see https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/research/groups/eucers/strategy-paper-1.pdf ;

http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/research/groups/eucers/strategy-paper-1.pdf

194

Chapter Two confirmed that there are many ways to understand UIE and research

integrity, and Chapters Four to Six delved more deeply into the factors that shape research

integrity work in the UQ-CCSG. The goal was not to develop a taxonomy of perspectives

about UIE and research integrity, but rather to start to illuminate how the different

understandings of UIE and research integrity held by those governing the UIRC and UIRC

stakeholders shape research integrity work. The integrity of research, or research

reputation, is subjective and multidimensional. There are informal and formal

communication processes used in safeguarding research integrity.

195

Part D: Discussions

7 Chapter Seven – The Revised Model for Research Integrity Governance

7.0 Preamble

The Provisional Model of Research Integrity Governance advanced in Chapter Two

theoretically informed this thesis and the model was used to guide observations, document

analysis and semi-structured interview themes. While there was great interest in

understanding the operating context of the UQ-CCSG, the thesis focus is on

understanding how the Centre is governed in relation to safeguarding research integrity.

Content analysis of 1700+ peer-reviewed articles about UIE for insights into research

integrity revealed the nature of research governance and key strategies. The magnitude of

the components and the strategies, and the causal sequences and the intensity of

relationships between the elements are not clarified by the research findings. Thus, it is

not possible to show the relative significance of each component in either the provisional

or the revised model, presented in Chapters Four and Five. What became apparent was

that the components of the provisional research integrity governance model are correct but

insufficient to explain the complexity of research integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG.

The Provisional Model is built upon scholarly deliberations about research integrity that

have focused on the role of governments and universities in driving procedural responses

to research integrity – a top-down approach.

Diverging from the generally understood features of research integrity governance

discussed in UIE scholarship, Chapters 4-6 reveal a more dynamic depiction of research

integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG. While the university’s research integrity policies

and procedures framework formed a critical part of the UQ-CCSG response to issues

around research integrity, there were other significant elements64. The operating context

amplified the significance of research integrity governance, and as the UQ-CCSG

members and researchers came from an array of disciplinary backgrounds, there are

differences about how UIE and research integrity are understood. The complexity of

64 For more information about UQ’s research integrity framework, see https://research-integrity.uq.edu.au/

https://research-integrity.uq.edu.au/

196

external factors, understandings, practices and strategies are brought together into a

revised model of research integrity, shown at Figure 7.

Through presenting a revised model for research integrity governance, this thesis

contributes to a more multifaceted understanding of UIE. It amplifies the notion that UIE

occurs within a dynamic web of organisational relations and networks, in contrast with the

imagery of an alliance between two monolithic entities – the university and the firm – to

create a piece of financially-rewarding technology. In contrast to most representations of

UIE, where businesses and the scientific community are the key research end-users, the

case of the UQ-CCSG shows that industry regulators and other government agencies and

the communities impacted by the CSG developments, are also key research end-users.

This echoes the practices of many producers in the extractive industries, who place great

significance and resources on developing and maintaining relations with the communities

surrounding production sites, rather than with customers of their products. This dynamic

ensures that the UIRC needs to make research findings accessible and intelligible to a

broad range of interest groups, beyond the UIRC members.

Figure 7: Revised Research Integrity Governance Analytical Model

197

Contemporary science is both publicly and privately supported and is fundamental to

social progress and technological and economic growth. Research has become a public

activity open to scrutiny, and over time researchers and other university employees have

become public servants (under legislation), though few would feel this to be true.

Reflecting the increasing oversight and interest in research results, UIRCs are seeking to

assure stakeholders of the veracity and utility of research findings. Over three hundred UIE

articles assembled for the literature review contain references to ‘stakeholder’, with the

majority appearing since 2010. This shows that the university discourse has been infused

by discussions about stakeholder analysis and management. University stakeholders were

categorised by Jongbloed et al. (2008) into a variety of groups, including governing

entities, administration, employees, clienteles, suppliers, competitors, donors,

communities, government regulators, non-government regulators, financial intermediaries

and joint venture partners. Generally, UIE scholarship focusses on managing the

stakeholders within the partnership, within the partnering universities and firms, or within

government agencies. There are exceptions, one being the strategic planning process for

the formation of the Knowledge Integration Community model at the Cambridge-MIT

Institute where 27 groups of stakeholders were identified (Acworth, 2008). The fieldwork

for this thesis with the UQ-CCSG highlighted its complex array of stakeholders, some of

whom align themselves with the ‘parent’ university and firms, while others do not.

This study has confirmed that research integrity governance is an integral element of

successful UIE and is emerging from changes to work practices in universities. ‘Research

integrity governance’ has become an umbrella term encompassing multiple public policy

and university management ambitions, e.g. it is responsible for recent closer regulation of

higher education, Australia’s second largest export market, and for measuring research

impact. The nature of research integrity governance echoes the larger scale changes to

UIE foreseen in the UIE literature review. It reveals evidence of an increasing

interdependency between universities, government, industry and communities. The

fieldwork also revealed a multitude of pathways, fora and activities via which to engage

with the public. Stakeholder groups did not have aligned expectations about the nature of

research integrity and who was responsible for upholding e.g. substantive elements, like

reporting all research results, rather than just the experiments with positive results; or

mere procedural elements, like having community or service company representation in

UQ decision-making bodies.

198

Generally, the proliferation of policies and procedures ensuring the freedom and integrity

of UQ-CCSG research satisfy most members of the scientific community and policy

makers. Some researchers have recommended that governance strategies are needed to

ensure that they are perceived to be working in the public’s interest and are sufficiently

distant from industry influences (Caulfield, Einsiedel, Merz, & Nicol, 2006; Critchley &

Nicol, 2009; F. A. Miller et al., 2015). Yet, as the case study of the UQ-CCSG reveals,

such measures do not necessarily prevent public scrutiny and disagreement with the

scientists, scientific organisations and the knowledge that is produced. Those writing about

‘frackademia’ in Europe and the US have illuminated cases of a lack of due diligence in

detecting conflicts of interest (Connor, Galbraith, & Nelson, 2012), perceived bias towards

funders - ‘industry-capture’ (C. Nelson, 2013), and inadequate transparency and

accountability mechanisms (Washburn, 2010).

Social science scholarship about the governance of research and new technologies has

tended to focus around key themes such as the public debates around GMOs in

agriculture from the 1980s and nanotechnologies from the 2000s. To date, the extractive

industries, such as minerals and O&G, have largely been overlooked; that is, until the past

decade or so, when the increased demand for energy and national energy security, new

technologies, and climate change has captured the imagination of an increasing number of

‘energy social scientists’. The need to identify and share good governance approaches to

UIE in these areas has been identified not only by the leaders of the UQ-CCSG, but has

also piqued the interests of scholars

The lack of transparency of academics’ links to the unconventional gas industry has been

raised in the media and in political circles and continue to be raised. Scholars have shown

that controversies, like those surrounding CSG, magnify and make explicit the hidden

social dimensions of UIE. Debates and political struggles about personal and

organisational values shape the structure, practices and output of UIRCs (Cordner, 2015;

Patriotta et al., 2011; Sharman, 2015). The CSG controversy involves an array of actors

with differing objectives and conflicting social values. The negotiation of how and when

research is conducted, by whom, and who pays, can change the nature and findings of the

research. When firms, regulators or policymakers use scientific methods or models, there

are frequently items that result from multiple decisions around resources and logistics.

199

UIRCs seeking to maintain their authority amidst scientific debates that are moving

between the scientific and public realms, must take measures to signal the reputations of

the organisations and individuals involved, and the legitimacy of the knowledge being

shared. In public debates where there is scientific uncertainty, those with strong values

that appear in conflict with the area of scientific research are sometimes motivated to

challenge the body of science in as many ways as they can think of, including by ‘creating

uncertainty’ (Elliott & Steel, 2017). Scholars suggest that social responsibility, a notion that

has been well-explored within controversies in the commercial realm, should also be

explored more closely within the ambit of the controversies in the scientific realm (Molinatti

& Simonneau, 2015; Valcárcel & Lucena, 2014).

The question becomes how the Revised Research Integrity Governance Analytical Model (

Figure 7) can shape current UIRC governance frameworks to support the integrity of

industry-funded research – the third research question posed in this thesis. Many of the six

good governances approaches identified are included in the Australian Research Integrity

Framework, ‘the Code’ (2018) and UQ’s interpretation of the ‘the Code’ into university-wide

policies and activities (https://research-integrity.uq.edu.au). Specifically, UQ a framework

of policies, procedures and activities in place focussed on identifying and punishing

scientific misconduct, promoting integrity values and protecting the scientific record. What

with workings of the UQ-CCSG reveals is that while these current organisational structures

and activities contribute to demonstrating the integrity of the research, there are additional

elements. These additionally elements are connected to the goal of UQ-CCSG to ‘serve

the education and research needs of the industry, government and community

stakeholders of the emerging CSG industry’. The traditional means of demonstrating

effective and legitimate governance of research to the scientific community (scientists,

students, funders, higher education regulators) is not sufficient in this arena.

Observations of the UQ-CCSG researchers revealed that they frequently had to, or felt

that they had to, assure company representatives, fellow researchers, professional

associations, research participants, end-users and other interested stakeholders of the

integrity of their research work and the organisations that they represented - the UQ-

CCSG and UQ. What became apparent was the integrity of UQ-CCSG research was being

assured through the UIRC supporting their researchers to balance their responsibilities to

https://research-integrity.uq.edu.au/

200

the scientific endeavour, various stakeholder groups and to promote the organisational

integrity and cohesion of the UQ-CCSG. Thus, research integrity reflects the idea of the

eight responsibilities of researchers outlined in Section 2.4. The additional good

governance approaches to research integrity discovered in the UQ-CCSG, discussed in

the previous chapter underlines how researchers have many responsibilities to external

stakeholders, not just the legal obligations to research funders.

In this dynamic, competitive and highly-scrutinised operating environment, research

integrity is fundamental for the continuation of the UQ-CCSG. The UIE literature drew

attention to significance of research organisations supporting researcher balance their

relationships with their employers and funders, scientific norms, research subjects,

researchers’ professional affiliations, other researchers (peers and juniors), students, and

society more broadly (Section 2.4). Closer examination of the UQ-CCSG revealed the co-

existence of four approaches to research (Table 14: Categorisation of UQ-CCSG

Research Approaches ), the pluralism of stakeholders (Appendix 2: Stakeholders with

interests in the CSG industry) and the significance of external stakeholders Figure 7

in ensuring research integrity. Research integrity is a set of principles and practices

shaped by dominance, discussions and trade-offs. Together these point to the current

conceptualisation of research integrity as being incomplete and that there needs to be

additional emphasis put onto the significance of research relationships with external

stakeholders. The following section considers the notion of socially responsible UIE.

7.1 Advancing an Approach – Socially Responsible University-Industry Engagement

Several intergovernmental and national science organisations advocate that governing the

relationships between research organisations and partners is critical to ensure research

integrity, as captured in the Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary

Research Collaborations ("Montreal Statement n Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary

Research Collaborations," 2013). However, determining how to implement a notion as

complex as safeguarding the integrity of industry-funded research, precisely because it is

not a mainstream tradition within the academy, cannot begin with developing policies and

procedures. A necessary prior step is to develop conceptual and rhetorical strategies –

ways of thinking and talking about research integrity and UIE together, that promote a

mutual acceptance of research integrity and UIE, and confirm the common language

needed to negotiate the goals and allocation of resources within UIRCs. The European

201

Science Foundation suggests that there has been significant progress in safeguarding the

integrity of medical and biotechnology research, but identified that there needs to be more

focus on non-medical research, demonstrated by the launch of the Promoting Ethics and

Integrity in Non-Medical Research (http://prores-project.eu/) in 2018.

Research integrity and social responsibility are inextricably linked. Some of these same

influential global science organisations support the long-held notion that science

organisations have a responsibility toward society and that ‘social responsibility practices’

are becoming integrated into research governance frameworks to safeguard the integrity

of research (Glerup & Horst, 2014; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and

Medicine, 2017). To support the revised analytical framework for research integrity

proposed in this thesis, this chapter proposes a framework to assist UIRCs engage with

the social context in which they are operating, leading from the idea that there are four key

approaches to research in the UQ-CCSG, as shown in Table 14. Multiple conflicting

interests in CSG research means that researchers need to go well beyond the minimum

required by research integrity laws and regulations to demonstrate the integrity of their

research. UIRCs must engage with society and the question for leaders and managers is

how the relationship is defined and governed.

Contemporary businesses and research organisations confront similar challenges, many

of which are revealed when establishing UIRCs. Despite the obvious differences firms and

universities confront similar challenges in governing increasing large and complex

organisations, navigating overlapping local and international legal frameworks, transmitting

organisational culture and values, reconciling self-interest and social interests (particularly

as recipients of public monies), and the balance between self- and external regulation. The

O&G industry and scholars have developed notions of CSR and applied it through

institutionalised self-regulatory regimes, e.g. UN Global Compact (GC) and the UK

Government’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), enterprise codes of

ethical conduct and social reporting. Some of these efforts have accomplished tangible

benefits for the businesses and external parities, however the global CSR movement has

validly been criticised as a self-serving public relations strategy to avoid government

regulation and community conflict. UIRCs with the O&G industry face being unflatteringly

categorised by stakeholders in the same way.

http://prores-project.eu/

202

The term ‘UIE’ becomes associated with different clusters of notions, each involving a

range of different meanings, ideas about how partnerships operate, as illuminated in Table

5. The study has also shown that research integrity is connected with different ideas and

values, as shown in Table 8. The complexity and dynamism of the two notions, research

integrity and UIE, point to the need for defining organisational values and goals to guide

the behaviour and the culture of research organisations. Contrary to the view that research

and research organisations are neutral or autonomous in their disinterested pursuit of

scientific knowledge, the fieldwork revealed stakeholder expectations of the UQ-CCSG to

consider the ‘macroethics’ of their research. This normative stance reflects recent

observations in the scholarship, that critical reflection of on the socio-ethical context of

research is crucial for many forms of research. There is also a growing political imperative

that researchers consider the social responsibilities of their work through the research

process, previously considered under the guise of technology assessments, ethical, legal

and social implications (ELSI) and the ethical, legal, and social aspects (ELSA) of research

(Zwart et al., 2014)

ELSI and ELSA approaches draw upon the material social responsibilities of

organisations. Thus, this study draws upon the practices of social responsibility in the CSG

industry. The CSG industry in Queensland has put a large amount of time and resources

into seeking a ‘social licence to operate’ and there are lessons for others. This makes no

judgement as to whether they have been successful – instead, it acknowledges that their

challenges have stimulated thinking and activity around various issues relevant to

university-industry research partnerships. Acknowledging the significance of the socio-

political and learning to exchange more effectively, will ease the institutionalisation of

irregular forms of UIRC in contested settings particularly, and in UIE more broadly.

Table 16: Material Social Responsibilities in Unconventional Gas as defined by the Industry and the Non-Profit Global Reporting Initiative65

Upstream (E&P) Midstream

Exploration Production Transportation Liquefaction

Health and Safety of Workers (Contractors




65 These factors are drawn from the Sustainability Reports of the four major operators in Queensland, the Global Reporting Initiatives, Oil and Gas Sector Disclosure https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-Oil-and-Gas-Sector-Disclosures.pdf and the IPIECA guidelines http://www.ipieca.org/topic/social-responsibility/external-initiatives.

https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-Oil-and-Gas-Sector-Disclosures.pdf

http://www.ipieca.org/topic/social-responsibility/external-initiatives

203

and Employees) and others




Well integrity and process safety (risk management)

Well / pipeline integrity and process safety (risk management)

Pipeline integrity and process safety (risk management)

Plant integrity and process safety (risk management)

Implementation of New Technologies considering needs and wants of local communities and the environment

Accident Prevention (inputs, drill pad, pipelines etc.)

Accident Prevention on constructing and maintaining pipelines

Implementation of New Technologies considering needs and wants of local communities and the environment

Disposal of Waste including chemicals and water




Impacts on Environment / Disturb Natural Habitat

Low emissions Impacts on Subsurface / Surface Water (Human, Animal and Industry Impacts)


Impacts on Subsurface / Surface Water (Human, Animal and Industry Impacts)

Impacts on Subsurface / Surface Water (Human, Animal and Industry Impacts)

Low emissions Impact on and from other industries

Impact on other industries

implementation of New Technologies to cut costs, lower risk

Local socio-economic-cultural development – local content, procurement etc.




Financial transparency Impact on and from other industries

Sustainable Development / Climate Change


This researcher’s fieldwork revealed that UIRC work to safeguard the integrity of industry-

funded research will continue to focus on getting the balance right between rigour,

objectivity and saliency of research while maintaining the research partnership.

Additionally, the fieldwork provided insights into the significance of the socio-political

context, especially notions of sustainability and public interest, and the significance of

demonstrating the integrity of UIRC research to a variety of stakeholders across multiple

domains. Many of the issues confronted in the CSG research were emotive issues that

surfaced contested and underlying personal values and mindsets. As the UQ-CCSG

progressed and sought to survive in an environment where rights and claims are varied

and unpredictable, researchers and staff developed continuing dialogue with certain

interest groups and not others. The fieldwork revealed how the UQ-CCSG was balancing

multiple responsibilities. Closer examination of how the relationships are balanced through

204

compromises and consensus-building, sheds light on how the UQ-CCSG’s responsibilities

to specific groups characterise research integrity.

Technoscientific debates around the production of certain forms of energy, nuclear, coal,

oil and natural gas, occur in sectors where industry and regulators are particularly

sensitised to the notions of social responsibility and firms’ social licence to operate

(Boutilier, 2014). Social responsibility is increasingly prominent as an action and policy-

relevant concept in these industries, and it provides universities engaging with the sector

theoretical and practical frameworks for reflection and action. Notions of CSR are being

embedded into petroleum engineering teaching and research activities at some

universities (Frynas, 2009; McClelland, Smith, & Smith, 2016). Governing a UIRC within a

conflicted and rapidly changing socio-political environment requires robust analytical

frameworks and continuing reflection (Betts & Santoro, 2011; Watson, 2007). The CSG

industry’s engagement with communities amid both acceptance and resistance, offers

insights for UIRCs operating within conflicted socio-political fields, i.e. university-industry

research partnerships within the extractives industry.

7.2 Conducting Socially-Responsible Research

Research integrity raises normative and epistemic challenges for university-industry

research partnerships. First, desirable and acceptable direction for research from science,

professional, administrative and social desirability perspectives need to be established and

agreed to by all parties. Only with an understanding from all members of the partnership,

can the ‘macroethics’ or social and ethical issues concerned, be addressed and responded

to. For example, the UK Engineering and Physical Research Council adopted the ‘AREA

framework’, with the key elements of this process being anticipation, reflection,

engagement and action (R. Owen, 2014). As UIE scholarship highlights, and the fieldwork

supports, there is often a gap between the research agendas that industry-funders and

universities wish to pursue (Bozeman et al., 2016; Etzkowitz, 2011). In broad terms,

industry partners’ agendas usually have commercial objectives while university partners’

agendas acknowledge the primacy of new knowledge creation, the public interest and

commitment to public engagement. For example, employees at UQ are to abide by the

ethical principles outlined in the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) which include: integrity

and impartiality; promoting the public good; a commitment to the system of government;

and accountability and transparency.

205

An analytical framework seeks to conceptualise what an industry-funded CSG public

interest research agenda could look like. By way of background, the underpinning notion is

that there is an increasing demand for universities and firms coming from all directions,

and all subsidiary organisations including UIRCs, to be socially responsible. Mining and

extractive industries have been at the forefront of thinking and responding to these issues

(Addison & Roe, 2018; Franks et al., 2014; J. R. Owen & Kemp, 2014) There is the notion

that globalism and neo-liberalism are intrinsically linked to observable and potentially

catastrophic social and environmental harms (Stiglitz, 2002). The pervasiveness of the

corporate entity in society has led to noticeable concern about the disproportionate power

of firms and the ability of governments to regulate. Against this backdrop there is an

increasing interest in how corporations and other social institutions define their missions in

terms of their impact on society and the environment and are held accountable for their

actions. There is growing interest in how corporations and other social institutions are

accountable not just to governments and their agencies, but also to other social groups,

e.g., employees, consumers and local communities.

Echoing the growing interest in relationships between corporations and society, are the

policy and practice initiatives focussed on defining the appropriate ‘social contract’

between universities and society (Gibbons; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001). Universities

are being driven to expand and institutionalise relationships with external parties, thereby

formalising some informal networks previously held by academics and professional staff.

The process of detailing and expressing these relationships in contracts, publications and

other documents, illuminates the changing social responsibilities of universities, and the

expectations of a broadening group of stakeholders. How organisations, corporations,

universities and other social organisations, manage their relations within society is

becoming an increasingly important aspect of their operations (J. Moon, 2014; Scherer,

Rasche, Palazzo, & Spicer, 2016) This is illustrated by the policies of many organisations,

national approaches to the matter, and international developments including references to

CSR and sustainable development (SD).

The Australian higher education regulator – the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards

Agency (TEQSA) – provides an example of how social responsibility is emerging as one

way to define, direct and measure the relationship between universities and society. From

the 1st of January 2017, every Australian university has had to demonstrate a commitment

206

to ‘social responsibility in its activities’. TEQSA has an expectation that universities ought

to justify public funding beyond the promotion of industrial competitiveness and economic

growth to include more normative social goals, i.e. diversity of workforces and students,

workplace health and safety and the sustainable use of campus facilities, among others.

The further institutionalisation of UIE, especially that which is beyond the direct hand of

government, suggests that innovation and higher education policy makers will become

more interested in how universities and their commercial partners will embed notions of

social responsibility into UIRC operations and research output. To date, while increasing

UIE and measuring research impact are explicit dimensions of the Australian innovation

policy framework, the government’s expectations about the social responsibility of

university-industry partnerships are largely implicit.

Further supporting the notion that social responsibility will provide useful insights to further

institutionalise UIE, is the idea that the individuals involved in UIE are interested not only in

the success of the partnership, but in links with society. Recent research into the current

state of UIE in Australia shows that the key motivation for actors from both universities and

businesses to collaborate, is to positively impact society (Plewa, Davey, Meerman, &

Galan-Muros, 2017; Plewa, Davey, Meerman, & Galan Muros, 2017). This is in contrast

with more commercial drivers including access to technology, reputation-building, problem-

solving and access to talent and assets. Steering research agendas in a socially-desirable

direction involves understanding their possible impacts (Weber & Rohracher, 2012);

(Stahl, Timmermans, & Flick, 2017). As scholars have identified, knowledge of potential

impacts needs to be gained as early as possible in the research process because

innovations tend to become ‘locked-in’ to society, making it harder and more expensive to

change or control them.

Until now, the UIE and research impact agendas have construed university-industry

partnerships as intrinsically beneficial to society (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Penfield,

Baker, Scoble, & Wykes, 2014; Markus Perkmann et al., 2013) The Framework for

University-Industry Engagement with Social Responsibility (FUIESR) provides a lens

through which to consider whether the drive to expand UIE across all industry sectors is

socially responsive and responsible, and whether the public-funding and legitimising of

some industry sectors or industrial processes is detrimental to broader social goals. As

shown, there is policy, practice and scholarly interest in what constitutes socially

207

responsible universities (Hayter, 2016; Larrán Jorge & Andrades Peña, 2017; Shek, Yuen-

Tsang, & Ng, 2017)and UIE, but how can notions of social responsibility manifest in

UIRCs? To work through one potential example: Industry members of the UQ-CCSG have

already identified their material social responsibilities through various mechanisms e.g.

industry-level consultations and research to fulfil licencing requirements (see Table 16).

Combining these existing sources of information about CSG industry’s social

responsibilities provides insights into the context in which they are operating and the

research themes most likely to be of mutual interest to pursue.

The thesis fieldwork identified that when a UIRC is operating within an evolving public

controversy, research integrity governance deserves fuller consideration than when it is

operating in a stable or stagnant context. More attention needs to be given to how the

UIRC engages with external stakeholders. This is important because the way innovation

occurs is changing. Not only are there rapid structural changes occurring in national

science, and in political and economic institutions but there is also a growing

understanding about the significance of societal end-users in the innovation process

(Cooper, 2011).

How organisations, corporations, universities and other social organisations, manage their

relations within society is becoming an increasingly important aspect of their operations (J.

Moon, 2014; Scherer et al., 2016) This is illustrated by the policies of many organisations,

and national approaches and international developments include references to CSR and

SD. Although CSR emerged from the commercial sector, many public-sector organisations

are redefining public goals through the social responsibility lens, i.e., framing activities in

line with high-level social goals. While universities can be categorised as public sector

organisations, the higher education sector has distinct and important social goals as an

educator and curator of knowledge. Scholars acknowledge that generally universities do

not explicitly define the principles and practices that shape their obligations to society, and

that the sector is arguably lagging in the implementation of sustainability reporting (Bice &

Coates, 2016; Ceulemans, Molderez, & Van Liedekerke, 2015; Lozano et al., 2015).

Numbers of universities are joining global sustainability or corporate social responsibility

reporting systems, including the Global Compact (GC), International Standards

Organisation (ISO) 26000: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Global Reporting

208

Initiative (GRI), as well as university-specific sustainability and social responsibility groups,

including the Talloires Network, University Social Responsibility Alliance (USRA) and the

Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) 66 In a general sense,

USRA has gained a foothold in the Americas whilst GRI, with its origins in the Netherlands,

is finding traction through the European Union’s (EU)’s Horizon 2020 funding

mechanisms.67 The benefits afforded to universities that identify as being socially

responsible have not been scoped or quantified in the literature. However, it is assumed

that universities identify tangible benefits from engaging with CSR networks and

sustainability reporting (Bice & Coates, 2016; Gamage & Sciulli, 2016; Richardson &

Kachler, 2016).

While CSR is the subject of a burgeoning literature, University Social Responsibility (USR)

is a recently defined notion. Although the notion has been explored more rigorously by

universities in Ibero-American countries, the values and practices are being investigated

by institutions and groups around the world (Jirawan, Leela, & Mark, 2016; Parsons,

2014). USR differs from the social responsibility of other societal institutions because it

integrates the impacts of educational institutions, that is learning and research (François

Vallaeys, 2012 ; Françoise Vallaeys, 2014). Briefly, the notion is that there are educational

impacts in the process of teaching-learning and how the curriculum is developed.

Additionally, there are knowledge impacts, which include the research lines of enquiry,

theoretical approaches, the exchange of knowledge and how it positively contributes to

society. USR centres on the mutual relationship between universities and their internal and

external stakeholders. Common strategies including involving internal stakeholders (staff

and students) and external stakeholders like government, local communities and alumni, in

the creation of learning and research processes. The notion is that key university missions,

learning, research and engagement, are improved by the continual feedback and

involvement of external stakeholders. Universities assume the role of promoting social

66 There are various global reporting initiatives for social responsibility or sustainability that increasing numbers of universities are

participating in at the organisational level e.g. Global Compact (http://www.unglobalcompact.org/participants/search ); Talloires

Network (http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/); International Standards Organisation – ISO 26000 (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm); University Social Responsibility Alliance

(http://globalusrnetwork.org/index.html); The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) (https://stars.aashe.org/) 67 For more information about the EU’s Horizon 2020 research funding program see http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

http://www.unglobalcompact.org/participants/search

http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm

http://globalusrnetwork.org/index.html

https://stars.aashe.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

209

responsibility and sustainable development, not just to students and staff, but also to

external stakeholders.

USR scholarship is evolving and varied interpretations of the social responsibilities of

university have emerged from differing political and economic perspectives. The need for

universities to focus on knowledge transfer and other themes relevant to economic

development contexts are key foci for authors from developing nations (Ahmadi & Tavreh,

2011). In contrast, environmental sustainability is a key focus for some European

universities. On-line disclosure of social responsibilities and other forms of accountability

and transparency in the U.S were investigated by Garde Sánchez and his colleagues

(2013). They found that universities generally were not committed to on-line disclosure of

social responsibility information, or sustainability-related activities. The researchers

concluded that social responsibility and sustainability challenges were not be faced by

universities and that social responsibility was not be used as a differentiating factor. In

Australia, national and state government regulatory requirements for public reporting mean

that most universities have very similar USR reporting, other than those that take on

additional voluntary CSR reporting. Examples include the University of Southern

Queensland and the Global Reporting Initiative68, the various universities that have either

signed the Talloires Declaration or joined the Talloires Network69 and the University of

Queensland which was voted as one of the top ten CSR organisations in Australia in 2013

by over 900 survey respondents collated by the Australian Centre for Corporate Social

Responsibility (ACCSR)70. The public face of universities and how the various

organisational units engage and communicate with external stakeholders is of increased

interest to various parties, but there is limited empirical analysis underpinning scholarship

about the social responsibilities of UIRC in the higher education, sustainability or CSR

space. There is also limited consideration given to how sustainability initiatives integrate or

compete with other university-wide strategies around research integrity, engagement and

diversity, to name a few.

Drawing on the idea that there are four types of research taking place in the UQ-CCSG, as

depicted in Table 14, an analytical framework is devised to guide further discussions and

68 See USQ at http://database.globalreporting.org/ 69 See list of Australian and other universities that are members of the Talloires Network at http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/ 70 See link to ACCSR Review http://www.accsr.com.au/html/stateofcsr.html (sign-in needed)

http://database.globalreporting.org/

http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/

http://www.accsr.com.au/html/stateofcsr.html

210

action about socially responsible UIE. To reiterate, the four types of research identified

were commercial, policy, academic and engineering. Within each of these domains,

dominant social responsibility frameworks have evolved. Drawing them together provides

a basis for UQ-CCSG to begin to define its relationship with society. In general terms, CSR

draws from the ISO 2600071 standards. USR draws on the work of Vallaeys (2012 ; 2014)

for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

supported Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI). Responsible Research and

Innovation (RRI) draws on substantial research work currently being undertaken in

Europe. Design for Values (D4V) draws on assumptions that values can and should be

expressed and embedded in designs of products, services, technologies, systems and

spaces (van den Hoven, Vermaas, & van de Poel, 2015). Together the four normative

frameworks reveal closely aligned notions of social responsibility but also begin to highlight

the different emphases, e.g. gender, equity or autonomy. Normative frameworks define

and explain organisational goals, the values that underpin the goals, and the potential

trade-offs between the goals. The focus of this study on research integrity means that it is

not possible to examine the details further, but the notion of socially-responsible UIE is

worthy of future research.

Table 17: Framework for University-Industry Engagement with Social Responsibility (FUIESR)

Commercial (Oil

and Gas) Research

Academic

Research (Life /

Physical / Earth /

Social Sciences)

Regulator /

Policy Research

Engineering

Research

Key Principles

Corporate Social

Responsibility

University Social

Responsibility

Responsible

Research and

Innovation Design for Values

1 Accountability ✓

Positive Influence

and Impact on

Society Open Access:

transparent and

accessible

✓

2 Transparency ✓

Informed Consent for

participation & usage

3 Ethical Behaviour ✓ ✓ ✓

Freedom from bias;

ability to have

autonomy

4

Respect for

Stakeholders ✓

Coordination of

Stakeholders

Engagement

through joint

participation of all

societal actors

Rights to Privacy;

Trust; Courtesy;

Respect of changing

Identity; Objective of

Calmness

71 The International Standardisation Organisation standard for Corporate Social Responsibility is ISO26000. https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html

https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html

211

5

Respect for Rule of

Law ✓ ✓ Rights to Ownership

6

Respect for

international norms

of behaviour ✓ Universal Usability

7

Respect for Human

Rights

Respect for Human

Rights Gender Equality ✓

8 Sustainability ✓ ✓

9 Science Education

Give people

knowledge and

tools to

participate in

research &

innovation


Research into natural gas production funded by O&G companies has been challenged on

scientific and societal grounds (Washburn, 2010). Therefore, there is a need for UIRCs to

better understand, respond to and incorporate societal interests in their research work.

The case of the UQ-CCSG confirmed that building and maintaining relationships with

external stakeholders is an important element of safeguarding research integrity. This

suggests that a ‘socially responsible approach to UIE governance’ is worth considering,

both theoretically and practically. Notions of socially responsible universities and research

are emerging from the recently updated Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)

curriculum from the United States (Committee on Science, 2009), the Responsible

Research and Innovation (RRI) paradigm from Europe (von Schomberg, 2013) and the

Australian requirement for universities to demonstrate their social responsibility ("Higher

Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards)," 2015). One of the objectives of

this study was to provide insights for the UQ-CCSG management team about how to

ensure the integrity of their research. The fieldwork suggested that fuller consideration of

the social context is advisable. Social responsibility frameworks and practices, which are

routinely observed in the oil and gas industry, provide an approach through which to

conceptualise UIRCs’ obligations to local communities and society more broadly.

212

Part D: Summation and Contribution 8 Chapter Eight – Conclusion 8.0 Preamble

The purpose of this work is to understand the nature of research integrity governance in

university-industry research partnerships, in order to better understand the phenomenon

itself as well as advise actors from science, government and business communities. UIE

and research integrity are emerging as key functions of university management and

science policy with distinctive national and organisational characteristics (Mayer &

Steneck, 2012; Markus Perkmann et al., 2013). However, how the UIE and research

integrity objectives are enacted within UIRCs has previously not been considered. UIRCs

and other formalised university-industry research partnerships are important elements of

contemporary research universities. The study responds to the recently identified need for

increased focus and guidance on how research organisations around the world address

issues of research integrity, and more particularly research funded by private sources and

research where the results have direct and immediate impact on people (Douglas-Jones &

Wright, 2017; Forsberg et al., 2018). University-industry partnerships can operate outside

of the accountability and transparency frameworks required by publicly-funded research

programs, and thus must demonstrate the integrity of their research processes and results

in other ways. This chapter revisits the research questions outlined in Chapter One and

considers whether these have been answered.

Scholars, policy-makers and university leaders are ‘democratising’ their understandings of

UIE and research integrity through examining multiple forms of UIE. Knowledge of UIE is

skewed by ‘epic’ partnerships, e.g. UQ’s research collaborations with Pfizer and Boeing

appear in multiple publications and social media formats, but the UQ-CCSG did not even

appear in the university’s annual reports from 2013-2016. This is somewhat surprising

given the monetary value of the partnership to the university and its aspirations to be at the

forefront of a nascent global industry.

In Australia currently, there are specific interests in understanding how the resources and

mining sectors engage with local universities. While there are various international,

national, organisational, professional and disciplinary codes and instruments that provide

general guidance for research integrity, it is the specific nature of industry-funded research

213

which has been the focus of this study. The exploratory case study of the UQ-CCSG

examines the phenomenon of research integrity governance in a UIRC closely, thus

identifying new elements of research integrity governance, the factors shaping it and the

effects and outcomes of how research integrity is governed. The qualitative methods

identified new elements and the links between the elements, providing the basis for future

research.

Previous chapters positioned research questions from the perspectives and observations

of UQ-CCSG stakeholders, informed by scholarly, professional and policy scholarship and

theoretical precepts e.g. institutional theory helps to identify and explain the context and

social mechanisms which influence how research integrity governance occurs in a UIRC.

The topic of UIE has been widely researched from many perspectives. However as

established in Chapter Two, how research integrity in university-industry research

partnerships is governed, has not been resolved. The research questions laid out in

Chapter Three enabled both the methodological and substantive aspects of research

integrity in university-industry research partnerships to be closely examined. The research

findings presented, emphasise the academically and commercially viable outcomes that

are socially valuable.

The first objective, from a methodological point of view, was to develop an analytical model

to provide a clear conceptualisation of research integrity governance and the common

organisational strategies used. Ensuring the integrity of industry-funded research has a

range of constituent elements and the Provisional Model provides preliminary insights into

the research integrity practices in a UIRC. Research integrity governance has been

posited in this study as a novel construct to be further developed in future research.

The second objective of this study was substantive. The goal was to use the analytical

framework to explore research integrity governance within an Australian UIRC operating

within highly controversial public debates about local CSG development, livelihoods,

energy and climate change. Empirical evidence as to what constitutes research integrity

governance in university-industry research partnerships to inform university governance

government policy was gathered. The fieldwork resulted in a revised model of research

integrity governance, which was presented in Chapter 6.

214

Finally, as a contribution to the UIRC that provided the research question for this study and

partial funding for it, the ‘Framework for Socially-Responsible University-Industry

Engagement’ is proposed. In providing the steps contained in it, this study contributes to

the field of research examining the institutionalisation of UIE.

8.1 Summarising the Key Findings

Ensuring the integrity of industry funded research is an identified barrier to the further

institutionalisation of UIE. There is growing interest in UIE scholarship and mounting

concerns among academics, activists and diverse groups with a stake in the research

topics, that industry-funding leads research groups to produce biased or trivial research

(Blumenthal 2003; Shore & McLauchlan, 2012) UIRCs must take steps to safeguard the

integrity of industry-funded research (Bozeman et al., 2013; Bozeman et al., 2016).

Without that, it is presumed that the research will inevitably favour the funder’s goals to the

detriment of university, public, national or environmental interests. UIRCs have the

responsibility for demonstrating the integrity of industry-funded research and that demands

quantitative and qualitative methods and diverse data sources because of its many

influential constituent elements (Boardman et al., 2013). The diverse forms of industry-

funded research highlight a need for clearer conceptualisations of varying organisational

forms of university-industry research partnerships and research integrity governance in

various situations. The provisional analytical model which underpins this study was

devised from extant UIE scholarship. The content analysis of 1758 peer-reviewed articles

raised to the surface how UIE has changed over the past thirty years (see Chapter Two,

particularly Section 2.2.5).

UIE scholarship reveals that regardless of the nature of partnerships, research integrity is

fundamental. According to the literature, research integrity: 1) ensures the veracity of

scientific processes or ‘microethics’; 2) manages the industry partnerships; and 3) provides

research output of value to the industry partner. Universities commonly embark on three

strategies to ensure the integrity of all research, without differentiating between private or

public funding. The strategies are promoting research integrity values, identifying and

punishing scientific misconduct and protecting the scientific record.

UIE scholars also suggest that the accumulated impact of various factors is leading to

more frequent challenging of the integrity of industry-funded research. The four factors

215

contributing to the increasing complexity and volume of research integrity governance

include: new patterns of knowledge exchange, structural changes to the higher education

sector, growth of UIE, and the significance of local context as discussed in Chapter Six –

The UQ-CCSG and the Provisional Model for Research Integrity . Whereas in most forms

of UIE the university is wholly responsible for ensuring the integrity of its research, the data

reveals a contrast in this UIRC with responsibility for research integrity being shared by

university and firm partners. UIE is normally considered as a bridge, merging the

institutional environments of the university and industry, to create a hybrid environment

with new practices and norms. Stakeholders initially expected the UIRC not only to

demonstrate the ‘microethics’ of research practices, but to respond to community

challenges, deliver output of value to society and attend to the ethical implications of their

work in a broad ‘macroethic’ context.

The extensive fieldwork conducted from 2014-2016 comprised observations, semi-

structured interviews and document analysis. While the data confirmed the Provisional

Analytical Model derived from the UIE literature, it also revealed more dynamic and

resource-intensive research integrity governance within the UIRC and new consequences

of UIE and university trends more broadly. Analysis of the data revealed that UIRC

research is accepted by diverse stakeholders not only due to its accuracy and rigour, but

also to how their research is produced. While ‘the Code’ suggests that researchers and

research organisations have responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of their relationships

to scientific norms, colleagues and participants (specifically Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples), closer examination of the literature showed that researchers and

research organisations have eight responsibilities. To ensure the integrity of their research

activities, researchers need to ensure the integrity of their relationships to: 1) scientific

ideals and norms; 2) the profession (e.g. the values and principles of the engineering,

legal, medical or other professions; 3) other researchers (e.g. colleagues within work

groups and laboratories or peers within the discipline4) students and junior researchers

(e.g. with respect to their need for training, supervision, mentoring and peer review; 5)

employers (e.g. employee obligations to the university to commercialise research; 6)

funders (e.g. their contractual obligations for resourcing and outputs; 7) subjects (e.g.

human subjects in drug trials and 8) society (e.g. impact of technology on society).

216

In addition to ensuring staff and student adhere to university conventions for preventing

research misconduct as outlined in ‘the Code’, the fieldwork showed that there are three

additional elements of research integrity governance in the UQ-CCSG. They are: 1)

establishing and promoting corporate governance mechanisms that integrate the

contractual, professional and social responsibilities of the research centre; 2) creating

unified multi-party technological solutions or boundary objects; 3) communicating scientific

methods and research findings for various publics whilst engaging with multiple research

collaborators and end-users. The revised model of research integrity governance reveals

that governance strategies explicitly align UIRC research objectives and processes with

normative ethical frameworks familiar to the stakeholders – CSR, USR, RRI, Design for

Values. Thus, in total, there are five elements of research integrity.

This exploratory study concludes that where university-industry research partnerships

engage with multiple unaligned stakeholder groups, additional work is needed to ensure

research integrity. While conceptualisations of UIE and research integrity vary between

and within stakeholder groups, development of this point is beyond the scope of this study.

The significance of UIRCs managing their stakeholders is consistent with the notions of

socially responsible universities and research that are emerging from Responsible

Conduct of Research (RCR) agenda from the United States, alongside the Responsible

Research and Innovation (RRI) paradigm from Europe. Through integrating ‘social

responsibility’ approaches into UIRC operations, it is envisaged that the integrity of

industry-funded research can be established, even in highly contested areas.

It is crucial to appreciate that this thesis does not reject current views of research integrity

governance, but makes more visible and redescribes it in a broader context.

8.2 Contributions

As noted at the end of Chapter One, this study set out to understand how UIRCs attempt

to safeguard and demonstrate the integrity of their research to different groups of

stakeholders. In pursuing this objective, the study makes two contributions 1) the

development of provisional and revised analytical models that depict the nature of the

governance mechanisms and their effects and outcomes and 2) the presentation of an

analytical framework for socially responsible university-industry engagement for UIRC

participants. Concepts and theories from the research integrity professional and scholarly

literature were brought to the study of UIE. Additionally, literature examining organisational

217

identity, the relationships and strategic management of universities and CSR underpinned

the understanding of research integrity governance in UIRCs. Thus, insights presented in

this study can be translated not only back into the UIE literature, but also into streams of

higher education and CSR scholarship, practice and policy.

8.2.1 Contributions to Theory

Primarily, this study conceptualised research integrity governance in UIRCs and

demarcated a phenomenon worthy of future research from scholarly, policy and practice

perspectives. The novel concept of research integrity governance in UIE clearly supports

the growing focus on expanding links between universities and industry, while ensuring the

independence and scientific rigour research practices. Safeguarding and demonstrating

research integrity proves to be a fundamental but complex component of UIE and insights

into its nature, predetermining factors and outcomes contribute to UIE theory and

literature. There is a constant disequilibrium within UIRCs shaping how research integrity

governance is conducted, e.g. academic versus non-academic, hard versus soft science,

objectivity vs subjectivity, technology versus science, entrepreneur versus operative,

individual versus collective interests, and private versus public interests. Consensus is not

essential, but for action and planning there need to be ways to frame debate, structure

university-industry partnerships, direct practices and evaluate outcomes. This thesis

advances our knowledge of UIE and research practices at an important juncture where

UIRCs are looking for examples of good practice.

This study is the first to investigate UIRC research integrity governance arrangements and

strategies, and identified multiple activities contributing to the integrity of UQ-CCSG

research. Legal, sociology and management scholars note that it is necessary to move

attention from individual misconduct to understanding and mitigating the organisational

and systemic determinants of inadequate research practice (Freckelton, 2016);

(Godecharle, Nemery, & Dierickx, 2013) The thesis supports this notion and advance the

idea that it is necessary for university and business leaders, as well as policy makers, to

gain a clearer understanding of how different parts of contemporary universities mitigate

the challenges to research integrity inherent in the rapidly changing and vast global

research complex. Particularly, when some internal and external stakeholders perceive

corporate influences inherently threaten the independence of science and trust in

218

research, particularly in industries directly contributing to global sustainability e.g. natural

gas. The case study shows that UIRC have complex responsibilities to produce useful and

measurable research outputs, contribute to public policy, underpin legal disputation and

consumer protection, compete for resources, and manage varied interests in research

output and outcomes.

The analytical framework for research integrity governance in university-industry research

collaborations proposed in this thesis provides a useful tool for UIRC planning and

practice. The framework also supports the development of appropriate public policy

interventions for research integrity within the context of higher education, innovation and

regional economic development policies in a predictable manner, as opposed top-down

formalised initiatives disrupting and overshadowing valuable research practices and

organically-formed linkages. The theoretical contributions this study makes include

deriving an analytical framework for describing the nature of research integrity

governance, identifying the key contributing factors and outcomes from the UIE literature,

and then refining the analytical framework for UIRC research integrity governance using

the insights drawn from a case study of the UQ-CCSG.

University-industry research partnerships are increasingly prevalent and there are many

potential benefits and downsides for the people and organisations involved. The findings of

this study clearly support the view that research integrity governance is fundamental to

university-industry research partnerships, with direct and immediate relevance to industry

partners and university stakeholders e.g., local politicians and members of the public with

interests in local livelihoods, human health and wellbeing, water quality and energy. The

study highlights the fact that research integrity should be approached, not only through

compliance and promotion of research integrity values, but also through seeking changes

to how UIRCs are governed and resourced.

Compliance with the national higher education regulator and university research integrity

policies is not the complete solution to assuaging stakeholder concerns about UIRC

research practices. UIRCs producing socially-impactful research may seek to demonstrate

the integrity of their research beyond the scientific community, which entails explicitly

aligning UIRC research practices with normative ethical frameworks familiar to the

stakeholders e.g. designing corporate governance structures, communicating research

219

output to non-experts or creating public-facing repositories of data. Not only does research

integrity governance present key insights to UIE scholarship, but it also contributes to

university management and therefore to strategic management scholarship more

generally.

Some perceive that research partnerships with industry partners inherently threaten the

independence of science and trust in the research outcomes, the organisations and

individuals involved (Fabbri, Holland, et al., 2018; G. Gray & Carroll, 2018) However, with

a growing and increasingly interdependent global research complex, UIE is no longer

optional for many. UIE is an increasingly significant function of universities and it is

necessary for university-industry research partnerships to ensure and demonstrate their

independence and saliency of research output, and to build trusting relationships with

stakeholders to ensure the continuing legitimacy and authority of the university, the

industry partners and the partnership itself.

Though extensive fieldwork, this case study highlights different understandings and

definitions of research integrity, which are motivated by different legacies, training and

conflicts. Case studies are increasingly popular in public policy, including higher education

and innovation. It can be assumed that UIE scholarship follows this ‘populist’ trend,

reflecting recent global political and industrial goals. This study contributes to the UIE

literature on strategic management – not critical management, not higher education,

sociology, or science technology, though all have relevance to the phenomenon of

research integrity in university-industry research partnerships.

Analysis of research integrity governance not only contributes insights about one potential

barrier to the further institutionalisation of UIE but also contributes to an understanding of

the changing nature of university work and research governance. More precise

terminology is needed to progress knowledge as well as broader evaluations of the ‘value’

of UIE. The significance of the fourth helix - research participants, end-users and media –

in university-industry research partnerships is understated in the UIE literature. Therefore,

the issues around the UIRC’s organisational identity and ability to attract resources and

build reputation, responsibilities to external stakeholders including key university

stakeholders of local communities, government agencies and students are yet to be

explored in detail.

220

This thesis contributes to the CSR management literature with the ‘micro-level’ case of an

interorganisational public-private partnership at the boundary of science and the market.

The case begins to fuse the notions of organisational social responsibility and social

responsibility for knowledge. There is much scope for further research in this arena. The

Framework for Socially Responsible University-Industry Engagement provides an

analytical framework to consider how UIRCs integrate and prioritise the social

responsibility agendas of universities and their industry partners around issues such as

Free Prior Informed consent for communities around extractives production sites, gender

equity, environmental sustainability and diversity.

8.2.2 Contributions to Management

The case of the UQ-CCSG shows that university-led strategies for research integrity and

industry engagement are treated as separate and distinct functions within the university.

For those involved in UIE, discussions about research integrity need to move between

different nomenclature or language conventions to reflect the functional languages of the

various industries, professions and disciplines. This thesis suggests that in politicised

contexts where research is contributing to emerging technoscientific debates, it is

necessary to demonstrably integrate the goals and practices of universities and firms. The

merging of the differing types of entity has organisational, epistemological, ontological,

practical and technical manifestations, and requires substantial human and financial

resources to negotiate their integration. Collaboration and integration happen at many

levels, from contractual arrangements through to informal networking. he CSG debate has

highlighted in the age of online social networks, the blurring of expert and non-expert

knowledge. New ways of bringing attention to research findings and processes are

emerging, which obligates public research organisations to react, respond or defend –

diverting resources away from the ‘core-business’ of conducting research. As has been

identified, successful UIE often comes at a financial cost to universities (Higher Education

Funding Council for England, 2016). In the context of UQ, industry-funding is a crucial

element of the business model of UQ’s institutes. This means the institutes potentially

financially unsustainable and are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace market

fluctuations. Researchers contributing to local and socially engaged research programs

appear to have aspects of their roles that mirror those of marketing, communications or

221

public relations professionals. On the other hand, contributing and responding to evolving

social debates brings them instant relevance and impact. The UQ-CCSG case highlights

the changing nature of academic work and the HDR experience.

Interviews and observations undertaken for this thesis highlights the fact that researchers

from various disciplines are not afforded opportunities for learning and sharing details

about the ‘macroethics’ of their research. While some in the traditional social science fields

of psychology, sociology or communication studies have notions of ‘macroethics’ built into

their professional practice, the same cannot necessarily be said for those in other

disciplines. The notion that universities have a responsibility to provide researchers

(employees and students) with formal training in research integrity is generally accepted.

What continues to be contested is ‘the how’ to conduct the training, and whether training

should be extended to all involved in the governance of research processes, including

financial, library, IT and legal staff.

The constant disequilibrium present across universities, but particularly in UIRCs, raises

concerns among external stakeholders about the university’s authenticity, sincerity,

motivations and ethics. Many Australian universities have policies around accepting

industry funds from tobacco, but have not tackled other industries which may cause social

and environmental harm e.g. alcohol, gambling, defence or fossil-fuels. The Framework for

University-Industry Engagement with Social Responsibility (FUIESR) provides a

framework to analyse, define, guide or evaluate social responsibilities for integration in

future strategic planning, decision-making and evaluation mechanisms. This may be

pertinent as the ‘research impact’ agenda gains hold.

In some cases of public policy making and law, the legitimacy of industry-funded research

is denied e.g. research into obesity by sugar-related food companies (Gornall, 2015) and

gambling by state interests and gambling companies (Young & Markham, 2015) . The UQ-

CCSG shows that avoiding challenging research impacting local communities is an

impractical and improbable solution because of the dearth of alternative sources of

knowledge about a rapidly changing situation that demands a policy response. Instead, the

role of governance of research is crucial. Industry-funded research is not a problem per se;

rather, it is a situation to govern and manage. This study has highlighted that the operating

environment for Australian universities researching the extraction of O&G and other fossil

222

fuels is changing, along with public perception. International researchers and funders are

operating under research governance frameworks which promote the notion of socially-

responsible research. More research and thinking about the social responsibilities of

universities in this space needs to be undertaken to ensure the integrity of industry-funded

research can be demonstrated.

The UQ-CCSG assumed the role of campus-wide coordinator of coordinator of corporate

relations with the gas companies and assumed the essential responsibility of facilitating

knowledge exchange. This position was described as the ‘policeman’ and overtook

existing personnel relationships and ensure a ‘politically neutral’ engagement with the

companies. Instead of having multiple touch points across the university, there was a

singular point of contact, where partnership progress was monitored and reported upon.

The UQ-CCSG assumed a sense of exclusivity and control. The learnings from more

diverse examples of UQ-industry engagement should be catalogued and shared,

particularly the domestic industries that are important to the Queensland economy –

agriculture, extractives and tourism. UQ publications and public discussions about UIE

inevitably refer to the success of the ‘epics’ – Pfizer and the development of the human

papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil, and the establishment of the Boeing Research and

Technology Australia facilities at the St Lucia campus, UQ. For example, the activities of

the UQ-CCSG do not appear in any UQ Annual Report from 2013 to 2016. UQ could

benefit from translating the findings of this study into a brief for university management

about the governance of UIRCs, particularly for the natural resource industries (mining,

O&G, agriculture). However, specific management advice such as this is a sperate piece

of work. It was beyond the scope of this work to do this as the styles of writing needed to

pass a PhD are not the same as a briefing note to university executives.

8.2.3 Contributions to UIE Policy in Australia

This thesis provides an alternative to the dominance of the technology research

commercialisation model and medical translational model in UIE policy discussions. UIE in

the Australian economic and socio-political contexts needs to contend with issues related

to energy, extractives, agriculture and service industries, and with notions of distance,

regional development and proximity to Asia, reflecting current and future industry growth.

The thesis fieldwork highlighted the changing role of government in UIE – from that of

223

funder and facilitator of UIE, to consumer of industry-funded research. The ramifications

are unknown, but there are growing debates about the role of industry-funded research in

government decision-making in the US and Europe. Australian universities are part of a

national system of higher education, most being publicly funded. Currently there are many

policy levers, at both and national and state levels driving more UIE. Thus, the

experiences of the UQ-CCSG can have relevance to other Australian universities as they

operate within the same national higher education system.

8.3 Limitations of the work

All research has limitations and broader relevance of findings to its field. It can be said that

a single case study has issues of generalisability or external validity. However the

approach is beneficial in the context of exploratory research, which aims to contribute

analytical generalisations and to build theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner,

2007). In this thesis, attention is paid to conceptualising the key elements of research

integrity and the factors that shape it, with the notion of transferring and translating the

findings to other settings.

This thesis has presented the results of an exploratory qualitative in-depth case study

research project, which offers considerable benefits in terms of understanding the nature

of research integrity governance, and how contextual and organisational change

contributes to shaping research integrity governance in UIE settings. However, examining

whether the same results regarding research integrity governance can be found in

‘emergent’ or ‘embedded’ in government or university ‘engineered’ settings, different

organisational (university or industry) or national settings, remains to be undertaken.

The fieldwork confirmed that research integrity governance within a UIRC contributing to a

local evolving scientific debate is complex and resource-intensive. It is difficult to sustain

the ideal of the researcher as neutral observer in any situation, but is particularly difficult to

do so when the research contributes to an unfolding technoscientific debate which involves

national, commercial, scientific and public interests. In various technoscientific

controversies, there have been assertions that researchers make claims to expertise and

neutrality without highlighting how intellectual independence has been co-opted by

individual and organisational, financial and non-financial links to partisan agendas (Glenna

224

et al., 2015; G. C. Gray, 2013; Grudnoff, 2016). Neutrality can be further compromised in

reports of research findings and recommendations where conclusions unpalatable to

industry funders, politicians or community members may be omitted. For example, as this

thesis was being prepared, some interviewees raised concerns that this research project

would further legitimise industry-funded research and that the university would enter into

further UIE arrangements with fossil fuel producers. Thus, researchers work in arenas

where there are technoscientific debates that question their positions within those debates.

The selection of a question, approach and underpinning research paradigm, is not just an

intellectual choice, but also a pragmatic and politically-inspired act.

8.4 Implications of the work for future research

The study suggests that socially-responsible universities will have to ensure there is

continuing critical oversight of UIE with the extractives sector, similar to that oversight

recommended by/provided by the ethical, legal and social implications or aspects (ELSI or

ELSA) research agendas that accompany the growth of the genomics and nanotechnology

industries. UIE with the O&G and mining sectors risk being overwhelmed by broader

debates about climate change, local economic development and rising social inequity

where oppositional interested parties frequently have intransigent viewpoints. If

universities do not provide the resources and conditions for the development of spaces

and fora to balance and negotiate these different interests, then they are not fulfilling their

social responsibility. Universities need to ensure that UIE arrangements are resourced

appropriately to fulfil their resourcing obligations and make sure they are not exacerbated

by the accumulated effects of multiple societal and organisational changes, which may

compromise the essential elements of research integrity.

In general, the most promising avenues for future research are likely to be focussed on the

management and decision-making structures within universities related to UIE and

research integrity. As UIE increases and the size, diversity and proximity of research

groups expands, industry-funded research is no longer constrained to developing new or

improving technologies. Academic and professional staff work in universities is changing,

responding to broad and rapid structural changes in science, higher education and

industry. Research integrity is fundamental to UIE, but open to many interpretations.

Practices vary considerably. In short, more attention needs to be given to identifying

issues and developing procedures for responding to the changing expectations and new

225

practices. Detailed case studies of specific issues of research integrity and how UIRCs

respond will provide clearer insights into how practices are negotiated.

University-industry research partnerships contribute to evolving public debates around life

necessities such as energy, housing and food. In nascent industries with few experts, it is

difficult to disentangle public and private interests and the role of university researchers. It

is particularly important for the reputation of the university, industry, and science more

broadly, that UIRCs are not perceived as being compromised, biased or ‘captured’. Thus,

the research findings show that UIRC research is accepted by diverse stakeholders, not

only due to its accuracy and rigour, but also to the legitimacy of the research organisations

and how the findings are shared. Thus, this thesis contributes to a better understanding of

the social dimensions of UIE and research integrity, but further investigations are

warranted.

One of the initial insights from this study is that the UIE literature assumes that industry

partners’ objectives are to develop or improve technologies, that is R&D. What was

immediately obvious in this case, was that membership of the UQ-CCSG was not only part

of firms’ R&D or labour capacity-building strategies, but rather part of their CSR and local

procurement / localisation strategies. The research agendas of the UQ-CCSG were to

characterise the gas reservoirs at all scales from the molecular to the basin and to

evaluate how production impacts the land, water and people. This knowledge benefits

producers and service companies as well as the regulator. From the outset, this is a

different value proposition from the commercial or research propositions listed at Table 14

that focus on evaluating the risks and benefits of a ‘potential unconventional industry’ and

from the value propositions of the technical programs which seek to improve exploration

and production yields. This insight suggests that for UIE theory to be extended, it is

necessary to have a better understanding of industry motivations for engaging with

universities.

A future research agenda on research integrity governance could include the following

dimensions: First, clarify the nature and dimensions of research integrity governance and

key strategies in UIRCs through multiple case studies in different contexts, developing

indicators and testing them. Second, understand the impact guidelines developed by

national agencies, universities, learned societies, journals and funding agencies are

226

having on research integrity governance in university-industry partnerships. The thesis

fieldwork revealed a cacophony of overlapping standards, guidelines and regulations

shaping research integrity organisational structures and practices. Third, identify what

work needs to be undertaken in different UIRC contexts to ensure and demonstrate

research integrity to all stakeholders. The fieldwork revealed the highly-differentiated

experiences of industry employees, HDR students, researchers, professional staff and

policy-makers. Fourth, consider the compatibility of the FUIESR with recent research

paradigms and reporting frameworks such as ERA, and impact assessments and national

and university-level commitments including the SDGs and Talloires Declaration. Finally,

after gaining an in-depth understanding of the nature and determinants of research

integrity governance in university-industry research partnerships, the goal would be to

develop viable strategies for implementation. Conceivably, certain steps can be taken to

identify and remedy some of the predictable problems encountered in UIE, and ultimately

increase the likelihood of success of UIE in controversial arenas.

In addition to pursuing a scholarly research agenda, university leaders and policy-makers

could find benefits from distilling the findings of current EU research projects relevant to

the Australian operating context and focussed on different dimensions of research

integrity, e.g. as in Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research

(PRINTIGER) 72, Stakeholders Acting Together On the ethical impact assessment of

Research and Innovation (SATORI)73; and Responsible Research and Innovation in

Practice (RRI-Practice)74 for findings.

8.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis seeks to contribute to the UIE literature through highlighting the

significance of research integrity in university-industry research partnerships. The lack of

attention to the governance of research integrity in university-industry research

partnerships is a barrier to the further institutionalisation of UIE. Through developing an

analytical framework from the extant literature and empirical analysis of a revelatory case,

this research reveals the significance of research integrity in the governance of university-

72 For additional information about the PRINTIGER project see https://printeger.eu/ 73 For additional information about the SATORI project see http://satoriproject.eu/ 74 For additional information about the Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice) project see https://www.rri-practice.eu/

https://printeger.eu/

http://satoriproject.eu/

https://www.rri-practice.eu/

227

industry research partnerships. In doing so, the research extends UIE theory and provides

normative and regulatory guidance on what UIRCs should do to incorporate fuller

consideration of the social context into UIRC governance arrangements and practices.

University partnerships with the resources sector in Australia have the potential to become

more highly politicised with issues of climate change and energy nationalism along with

increasing community expectations impacting on them more and more each year. Given

the large contribution of the mining and O&G to the Queensland economy and the

historical ties between UQ and the industries, the potential incidence of conflict and

reputational damage will escalate. The threat of the loss or non-renewal of UIE contracts

due to stakeholder backlash may also grow. However, this research reduces the likelihood

of these consequences by conceptualising research integrity governance in industry-

funded research partnerships. Through integrating ‘social responsibility’ approaches into

UIRC operations, it is envisaged that the integrity of industry-funded research can be

established, even in highly contested arenas.

228

9. List of References

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry collaboration in

Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6-7), 498-507. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.11.003

Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005

Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. In. London: UK-Innovation Research Centre.

Achatz, J., Fuchs, S., Kleinert, C., & Roßmann, S. (2010). "We are a Motley Crew": Exploring the Careers of Men and Women Working at the University-Industry Interface. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 5(1), 75-84.

Acworth, E. B. (2008). University–industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy, 37(8), 1241-1254. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.022

Adams, P. J. (2007). Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction, 102(7), 1027-1033. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01829.x

Addison, T., & Roe, A. (Eds.). (2018). Extractive Industries - The Management of Resources as a Driver of Sustainable Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501-522.

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.44.14279

Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00069

Aguiar-Díaz, I., Díaz-Díaz, N. L., Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L., & De Sáa-Pérez, P. (2016). University–industry relations and research group production: is there a bidirectional relationship? Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(4), 611-632. doi:10.1093/icc/dtv042

Al-Sultan, Y. Y. (1998). The concept of science park in the context of Kuwait. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8), 800-807. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000076436300007

Al-Tabbaa, O., & Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university–industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.027

Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of national science park systems: a theoretical framework and its application to the Italian and Spanish systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(5), 599-614. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.785508

Alberts, B., Cicerone, R. J., Fienberg, S. E., Kamb, A., McNutt, M., Nerem, R. M., . . . Suresh, S. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420-1422.

Ali, H. A. E. H. (2012). Universities, industrial clusters and economic development in Egypt. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 11(3), 245-264. doi:10.1386/tmsd.11.3.245_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.027

229

Allen, M. M. C. (2013). Comparative capitalisms and the institutional embeddedness of innovative capabilities. Socio-Economic Review, 11(4), 771-794. doi:10.1093/ser/mwt018

Altbach, P. G., & Balán, J. (Eds.). (2007). World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities. Washington D.C. : World Bank

Altmann, A., & Ebersberger, B. (Eds.). (2013). Universities in Change : Managing Higher Education Institutions in the Age of Globalisation. Germany Springer

Alvesson, M. (2009). At-home ethnography: Struggling with closeness and closure. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 156-174). London: Sage Publications.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. Doing Critical Management Research. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208918

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of management review, 36(2), 247-271.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (). Constructing Research Questions - Doing Interesting Research London: Sage

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Making sense of management: A critical introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Åm, K., & Heiberg, S. (2014). Public–private partnership for improved hydrocarbon recovery – Lessons from Norway's major development programs. Energy Strategy Reviews, 3(0), 30-48. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.06.003

Amara, N., Landry, R., & Halilem, N. (2013). Faculty consulting in natural sciences and engineering: between formal and informal knowledge transfer. Higher Education, 65(3), 359-384. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9549-9

Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D'Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized?: creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00804.x

American Association of Petroleum Geologists. (2019). Energy Minerals Division Coalbed Methane Committee Report. In. Texas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, .

American Association of University Professors. (2014). Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Anbardan, Y. Z. (2013). Determinants Of Academic Research Commercialization In Iran Gas Industry. Business, Management and Education, 11(1), 34. doi:10.3846/bme.2013.03

Andereggen, S., Vischer, M., & Boutellier, R. (2012). Honest but broke: The dilemma of universities acting as honest brokers. Technology in Society, 34(2), 118-126. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.02.005

Anderson, M., Adam, J., & Snyder, S. (2016). Research Integrity: International Perspectives. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 881-890). Singapore: Springer.

Angus, D., Rintel, S., & Wiles, J. (2013). Making sense of big text: a visual-first approach for analysing text data using Leximancer and Discursis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 261-267. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.774186

Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208918

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.06.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003

230

Anonymous. (2008, 0/09/2008 ). Partner or perish warns university chief. Brisbane Business News. Retrieved from http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/process/myviews/bbn_article.html?articleId=172

Anonymous. (2015, 30/06/2015). Former University of Queensland professor Bruce Murdoch charged over alleged fake Parkinson's research. ABC Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476

Antonelli, G., Cappiello, G., & Pedrini, G. (2013). The Corporate University in the European utility industries. Utilities Policy, 25, 33-41. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2013.02.003

Appel, H., Mason, A., & Watts, M. (2015). Subterranean Estates, Life Worlds of Oil and Gas Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Arbuthnott, A., Hannibal, M., & Nybacka, M. (2011). Renewing industry cluster development via interregional industry-university links. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 3(6), 604-631. doi:10.1504/ijird.2011.043468

Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy. Regional Studies, 45. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.596701

Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of science matter? Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 193-206.

Aula, H.-M., Tienari, J., & Wæraas, A. (2015). The University Branding Game: Players, Interests, Politics. International Studies of Management and Organization, 45(2), 164-179. doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1006015

Australian Research Council. (2016). Engagement and Impact Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment

Avenier, M.-J., & Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks. Systèmes d'information & management, 20(1), 61-98.

Ayling, J., & Gunningham, N. (2015). Non-state governance and climate policy: the fossil fuel divestment movement. Climate Policy, 1-15. doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1094729

Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27(11), 704-715. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.003

Azevedo Ferreira, M. L., & Rezende Ramos, R. (2015). Making University-Industry Technological Partnerships Work: a Case Study in the Brazilian Oil Innovation System. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 10(1), 173-187.

Aziz, K. A., Harris, H., Zahid, S. M., & Aziz, N. A. A. (2013). Commercialisation of University Research: An Investigation of Researchers' Behaviour. Communications of the IBIMA, 2013, 1-19.

Bach, M. (2019). The oil and gas sector: from climate laggard to climate leader? Environmental Politics, 28(1), 87-103. doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1521911

Baird, J. (2011). Accountability in Australia. In B. Stensaker & L. Harvey (Eds.), Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power (pp. 25-48). London: Routledge.

Baldwin, D. R. (1986). Technology Transfer at the University of Washington. SRA - Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 17(4), 13-19.

Baldwin, D. R., & Green, J. W. (1984). University-Industry Relations: A Review of the Literature. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 15(4), 5.

Baldwin, W. (1996). The U.S. research university and the joint venture: Evolution of an institution. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(5), 629-653. doi:10.1007/BF00214827

http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/process/myviews/bbn_article.html?articleId=172

http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/process/myviews/bbn_article.html?articleId=172

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476

http://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment

231

Baldwin, W. L., & Link, A. N. (1998). Universities as research joint venture partners: does size of the venture matter? International Journal of Technology Management, 15(8), 895-913. doi:10.1504/IJTM.1998.002637

Baltaru, R.-D., & Soysal, Y. N. (2018). Administrators in higher education: organizational expansion in a transforming institution. Higher Education, 76(2), 213-229. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0204-3

Bamber, G. J., & Sappey, J. (2007). Unintended consequences of human research ethics committees: Au revoir workplace studies? Monash Bioethics Review, 26(3), S26-S36.

Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-world Problems. Retrieved from http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Preliminary-Pages.pdf

Bangs, C., Bernard-Herman, B., Maxmin, C., & Williams, E. (2013). The Student-Led, Fossil-Fuel Divestment Movement. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 6(2), 97-103. doi:10.1089/sus.2013.9878

Barker, K. (2015). The challenging Australian policy context for university engagement. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(5), 477-489.

Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. London: Routledge. Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. London: Routledge. Barnett, R. (2016). Understanding the University: Institution, Idea, Possibilities. London Routledge. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: creating value through

interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367-403. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00046-5

Bas, T. G., & Kunc, M. (2012). University involvement in economic development in natural-resource based regions. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 9(1-2), 22-50. doi:10.1504/ijlic.2012.043979

Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Conflicts, Commitments, and Cliques in the University: Moral Seduction as a Threat to Trustee Independence. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 354-386. doi:10.3102/0002831208329439

Bauer, M., & Cohen, E. (1981). Teaching Policies and University-Industry Coalitions. Revue Francaise De Sociologie, 22(2), 183-203. doi:10.2307/3321000

Baumann, H. (2011). More than a ‘personal error of judgement’: Seif Gaddafi and the London School of Economics. Jadaliyya. Retrieved from http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/23801/More-Than-a-Personal-Error-of-Judgment-Seif-Gaddafi-and-the-London-School-of-Economics

Baur, X., Budnik, L. T., Ruff, K., Egilman, D. S., Lemen, R. A., & Soskolne, C. L. (2015). Ethics, morality, and conflicting interests: how questionable professional integrity in some scientists supports global corporate influence in public health. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 21(2), 172-175. doi:doi:10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000103

Beerkens, E. (2009). Centres of Excellence and Relevance The Contextualisation of Global Models. Science Technology and Society, 14(1), 153-175.

Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454-465.

Bell, J. M., Frater, B., Butterfield, L., Cunningham, S. D., Dodgson, M., Fox, K., . . . Webster, E. (2014). Securing Australia's future: The role of science, research and technology in lifting Australian productivity (0987579835). Retrieved from

http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Preliminary-Pages.pdf

http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Preliminary-Pages.pdf

http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/23801/More-Than-a-Personal-Error-of-Judgment-Seif-Gaddafi-and-the-London-School-of-Economics

http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/23801/More-Than-a-Personal-Error-of-Judgment-Seif-Gaddafi-and-the-London-School-of-Economics

232

Ben-Yehuda, N., & Oliver-Lumerman, A. (2017). Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation, and Organizational Response. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bendassolli, P. F. (2013). Theory Building in Qualitative Research: Reconsidering the Problem of Induction. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(1). doi:10.17169/fqs-14.1.1851

Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2015). Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: institutionalizing the universities' third mission in the Swedish context. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 280-296. doi:10.1080/21568235.2015.1044549

Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2

Benneworth, P., Pinheiro, R., & Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2016). One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 731-735. doi:10.1093/scipol/scw018

Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Garcia, J. L. S. (2015). Can a magic recipe foster university spin-off creation? Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2272.

Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21-35. doi:10.1023/A:1007828026904

Bero, L. (2005). Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports, 120(2), 200-208. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/

Bero, L. (2018). Ten tips for spotting industry involvement in science policy. Tobacco Control. Retrieved from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/05/25/tobaccocontrol-2018-054386.abstract

Betts, S. C., & Santoro, M. D. (2011). Somewhere between Markets and Hierachies: Controlling Industry University Relationship for Success. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 19-43.

Betz, J. (2015). University Research and Development Steady in Industry Downturn. Journal of Petroleum Technology. doi:10.2118/1015-0056-JPT

Beveridge, G. S. G. (1991). Technology transfer from a regional university: origins, developments and diversity. International Journal of Technology Management, 6(5-6), 441-449. doi:10.1504/ijtm.1991.025901

Beyazay, B. (2016). The Nature of the Firm in the Oil Industry: International Oil Companies in Global Business. New York and Oxford: Routledge.

Bice, S., & Coates, H. (2016). University sustainability reporting: taking stock of transparency. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/13583883.2015.1115545

Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than "good science". Journal of microbiology & biology education, 15(2), 169-172. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.870

Birmingham, S. (2017). 2017 pilot to test impact, business engagement of researchers [Press release]. Retrieved from 2017 pilot to test impact, business engagement of researchers

Birol, F., Besson, C., & Gould, T. (2012). Golden rules for a golden age of gas. Retrieved from Paris Birrell, R. (2006). The development of mining technology in Australia 1801-1945. (PhD ). The

University of Melbourne Melbourne. Biscotti, D., Glenna, L. L., Lacy, W. B., & Welsh, R. (2009). The "independent" investigator: how

academic scientists construct their professional identity in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations. In N. Bandelj (Ed.), Economic Sociology of Work (Vol. 18, pp. 261-285).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/05/25/tobaccocontrol-2018-054386.abstract

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/05/25/tobaccocontrol-2018-054386.abstract

233

Biscotti, D., Lacy, W. B., Glenna, L. L., & Welsh, R. (2012). Constructing “Disinterested” Academic Science: Relational Work in University–Industry Research Collaborations. Politics and Society, 40(2), 273-308.

Biscotti, D. L. (2010). Beyond knowledge transfer: The social construction of autonomous academic science in university-industry agricultural biotechnology research collaborations. (Ph.D.). University of California, Davis, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database.

Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2 (pp. 19-35): Springer.

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative Research in Management: A Decade of Progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866-1891. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

Blumenthal, D. (1994). Growing pains for new academic-industry relationships. Health Affairs, 13(3), 176-193. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.13.3.176

Blumenthal, D. (1996). Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: The continuing debate. Academic Medicine, 71(12), 1291-1296. doi:10.1097/00001888-199612000-00010

Blumenthal , D. (2003). Academic–Industrial Relationships in the Life Sciences. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(25), 2452-2459. doi:doi:10.1056/NEJMhpr035460

Boardman, C., & Gray, D. (2010). The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 445-459. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y

Boardman, C., Gray, D., & Rivers, D. (Eds.). (2013). Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation Government Policies, Industry Strategies and Organisational Dynamics New York: Springer.

Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Nuvolari, A. (2012). Traditional Versus Heterodox Motives for Academic Patenting: Evidence from the Netherlands. Industry and Innovation, 19(8), 671-695. doi:10.1080/13662716.2012.739775

Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2014). 'A jack of all trades': the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 134-149. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8

Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010). Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge. Academy of management review, 35(3), 415-433.

Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. Abingdon, Oxon.,: Routledge.

Bolz, K., & de Bruin, A. (2019). Responsible innovation and social innovation: toward an integrative research framework. International Journal of Social Economics. doi:10.1108/IJSE-10-2018-0517

Bonaccorsi, A., Secondi, L., Setteducati, E., & Ancaiani, A. (2014). Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 169-198. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9268-5

Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2008). Taking Conflicts of Interest Seriously without Overdoing It: Promises and Perils of Academic-Industry Partnerships. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 229-243. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9069-5

234

Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.

Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology(66), 2215-2222. doi:10.1002/asi.23329

Boulle, L., Hunter, T., Weir, M., & Curnow, K. (2014). Negotiating conduct and compensation agreements for coal seam gas operations: Developing the Queensland regulatory framework. Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 17(1), 43.

Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: a dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495-514.

Boutilier, R. G. (2014). Frequently asked questions about the social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(4), 263-272.

Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 49(7), 18-33. doi:10.2307/3824459

Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2013). Academic Faculty in University Research Centers: Neither Capitalism's Slaves nor Teaching Fugitives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 88-120. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000312622700004

Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1-67. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8

Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Rimes, H. (2016). Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 226-244. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv035

Bradbury, H., & Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. (2000). Relationality in organizational research: Exploring The Space Between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551-564.

Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175-1187. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016

Breu, K., & Hemingway, C. (2005). Researcher-Practitioner Partnering in Industry-Funded Participatory Action Research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 437-455. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-8482-6

Brewer, J. (2013). Toward a Publicly Engaged Geography: Polycentric and Iterated Research. Southeastern Geographer, 53(3), 328-347. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/southeastern_geographer/v053/53.3.brewer.html

Bridgman, T. (2009). No smoke without fire? : corporate social responsibility and the ethics of university-industry partnerships. In C. Garsten & T. Hernes (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas in management (pp. 117-131). Oxford: Routledge.

Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 1-17. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1145575

Brundenius, C., Lundvall, B. Å., & Sutz, J. (2009). The role of universities in innovation systems in development countries: developmental university systems – empirical, analytical and normative perspectives. In B. Å. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, C. Chaminade, & J. Vang (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting (pp. 311-336). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-8482-6

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/southeastern_geographer/v053/53.3.brewer.html

235

Bruneel, J., D’este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006

Buchanan, D. A., & Bryman, A. (2007). Contextualizing Methods Choice in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 483-501. doi:10.1177/1094428106295046

Butler, J., & Gibson, D. (2013). Research Universities in the Framework of Regional Innovation Ecosystem: The Case of Austin, Texas. Foresight-Russia, 7(2), 42-57.

Buzard, K., & Carlino, G. A. (2008). The Geography of Research and Development Activity in the U.S. Business Review - Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 1-11.

Byrne, E. F. (2010). The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex is Circumstantially Unethical. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 153-165. doi:10.2307/40785080

Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467-480.

Cai, Y., & Mehari, Y. (2015). The Use of Institutional Theory in Higher Education Research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-25). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Calcagnini, G., & Favaretto, I. (2016). Models of university technology transfer: analyses and policies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 655-660. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9427-6

Calcagnini, G., Giombini, G., Liberati, P., & Travaglini, G. (2016). A matching model of university–industry collaborations. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 31-43. doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9672-y

Caloghirou, Y., Ioannides, S., & Vonortas, N. S. (2003). Research Joint Ventures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(4), 541-570. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00204

Calzonetti, F. J., Miller, D. M., & Reid, N. (2012). Building both technology-intensive and technology-limited clusters by emerging research universities: The Toledo example. Applied Geography, 34, 265-273. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.11.012

Campbell, E., Weissman, J., Ehringhaus, S., Rao, S., Moy, B., Feibelmann, S., & Goold, S. (2007). Institutional Academic-Industry Relationships. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(15), 1779-1786.

Canary, H. E., Hansen, K. D., Rinehart, M. D., May, K., & Barlow, J. (2015). Disciplinary Differences in Conflict of Interest Policy Communication, Attitudes, and Knowledge. Journal of Research Administration, 46(2), 115-135.

Cantwell, B., Kauppinen, I., & Slaughter, S. (2014). Academic Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Capogna, S. (2012). Scientific research and "third University mission": what role for the University. Italian Sociological Review, 2(1), 33-42.

Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2006). Mode 3: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In E. Carayannis & D. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters (pp. 1-25).

Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-12.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201-234.

Carney, M. (2012). CSG panel faces serious conflicts of interest. In ABC Lateline: ABC Casati, A., & Genet, C. (2014). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. Journal of

Technology Transfer, 39(1), 11-32. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9275-6

236

Cassell, C. (2016). European qualitative research: A celebration of diversity and a cautionary tale. European Management Journal, 34, 453-456.

Cassidy, R., Loussouarn, C., & Pisac, A. (2014). Fair Game: Producing gambling research. In. London: Goldsmiths University of London

Casswell, S. (2013). Vested interests in addiction research and policy. Why do we not see the corporate interests of the alcohol industry as clearly as we see those of the tobacco industry? Addiction, 108(4), 680-685. doi:10.1111/add.12011

Caulfield, T., Einsiedel, E., Merz, J. F., & Nicol, D. (2006). Trust, patents and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nature Biotechnology, 24(11), 1352. doi:10.1038/nbt1106-1352

Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 127-143. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.052

Chai, S., & Shih, W. (2016). Bridging science and technology through academic-industry partnerships. Research Policy, 45(1), 148-158. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.007

Chapleo, C. (2015). Brands in Higher Education. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 150-163. doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1006014

Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham, P., Povey, J., & Ferguson, M. (2012). Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: a cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evidence and Policy, 8(4), 433-453. doi:10.1332/174426412x660098

Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham, P., Povey, J., & Ferguson, M. (2013). Research Utilization in the Social Sciences A Comparison of Five Academic Disciplines in Australia. Science Communication, 35(6), 780-809.

Chu, W.-K. (1983). University-Industry Research Collaboration. Ieee Transactions on Nuclear Science, 30(2), 1357-1358. doi:10.1109/TNS.1983.4332531

Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2).

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon / IAU

Cleary, P. (2011, 05/10/2011 ). Institute shy about industry cash The Australian Cleary, P. (2011). Too much luck : the mining boom and Australia's future. Collingwood, Victoria:

Black Inc. Cleary, P. (2012). Mine-Field: The Dark Side of Australia's Resources Rush. Collingwood, Victoria:

Black Inc. Coleman, C. H., & Bouësseau, M.-C. (2008). How do we know that research ethics committees are

really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC medical ethics, 9(6). doi:10.1186/1472-6939-9-6

Colyvas, J. A. (2007). From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University. Research Policy, 36(4), 456-476. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.019

Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 943-966. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9227-6

Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine; . (2009). On Being a Scientist:A Guide to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.052

237

Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition (3rd Edition ed.). Washington: The National Academies Press.

Connor, K., Galbraith, R., & Nelson, B. (2012). Contaminated Inquiry How a University of Texas Fracking Study Led by a Gas Industry Insider Spun the Facts and Misled the Public. Retrieved from Buffalo, NY: http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/ContaminatedInquiry.pdf

Cook, P., Beck, V., Brereton, D., Clark, R., Fisher, B., Kentish, S., . . . Williams, J. (2013). Engineering Energy: Unconventional Gas Production - A study of shale gas in Australia. Retrieved from Melbourne: http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF06FINAL/Final%20Report%20Engineering%20Energy%20June%202013.pdf

Cooper, D. (2011). The University in Development, Case Studies in Use-Orientated Research. Cape Town HSRC Press

Cordner, A. (2015). Strategic Science Translation and Environmental Controversies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(6), 915-938. doi:10.1177/0162243915584164

Corley, E., Kim, Y., & Scheufele, D. (2016). Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 111-132. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9637-1

Cosgrove, L., Vannoy, S., Mintzes, B., & Shaughnessy, A. F. (2016). Under the Influence: The Interplay among Industry, Publishing, and Drug Regulation. Accountability in Research, 23(5), 257-279. doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1153971

Cosh, A., Hughes, A., & Lester, R. (2006). UK PLC: just how innovative are we? Findings from the Cambridge-MIT Institute International Innovation Benchmarking Project. In The Cambridge-MIT Institute.

Cotton, M. (2016). Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning. Local Environment, 1-18.

Cottrill, C. A., Rogers, E. M., & Mills, T. (1989). Co-citation Analysis of the Scientific Literature of Innovation Research Traditions: Diffusion of Innovations and Technology Transfer. Knowledge, 11(2), 181-208. doi:10.1177/107554708901100204

Covey, S. R., & Merrill, R. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications.

Cretchley, J., Rooney, D., & Gallois, C. (2010). Mapping a 40-Year History With Leximancer: Themes and Concepts in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 318-328. doi:10.1177/0022022110366105

Crime and Misconduct Commission. (2013). An examination of suspected official misconduct at the University of Queensland Retrieved from Brisbane: http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/misconduct/uq/an-examination-of-suspected-official-misconduct-at-the-university-of-queensland

Critchley, C. R., & Nicol, D. (2009). Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting the research? Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 347-366. doi:10.1177/0963662509346910

Cronshaw, I., & Grafton, R. Q. (2016). A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Resources Policy, 50, 253-263.

http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/ContaminatedInquiry.pdf

http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/ContaminatedInquiry.pdf

http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF06FINAL/Final%20Report%20Engineering%20Energy%20June%202013.pdf

http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF06FINAL/Final%20Report%20Engineering%20Energy%20June%202013.pdf

http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/misconduct/uq/an-examination-of-suspected-official-misconduct-at-the-university-of-queensland



238

Cronshaw, I. G., & Grafton, R. Q. (2016). Unconventional Gas Regulation in Australia and the US: Case Studies of Four Jurisdictions. In R. Q. Grafton, I. G. Cronshaw, & M. C. Moore (Eds.), Risks, Rewards and Regulation of Unconventional Gas: A Global Perspective (pp. 286-326). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crowe, J. A., & Goldberger, J. R. (2009). University-Industry Relationships in Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences: The Role of Women Faculty. Rural Sociology, 74(4), 498-524. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000272495600002

Cumbers, A., Mackinnon, D., & Chapman, K. (2003). Innovation, collaboration, and learning in regional clusters: a study of SMEs in the Aberdeen oil complex. Environment and Planning A, 35(9), 1689-1706.

Cummings, B. (2014). The changing landscape of intellectual property managment as a revenue-generating asset for U.S. research universities. George Mason Law Review, 21, 1027-1347.

Cunningham, J., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923-956. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9491-6

Curry, J. (2017). JC in transition. Retrieved from https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Cuthill, M. (2010). Working together: A methodological case study of 'engaged scholarship'. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 3, 18.

Cuthill, M. (2011). Embedding Engagement in an Australian" Sandstone" University: From Community Service to University Engagement. Metropolitan Universities, 22(2), 21-44.

Cuthill, M., O'Shea, É., Wilson, B., & Viljoen, P. (2014 ). Universities and the Public Good: A Review of Knowledge Exchange Policy and Related University Practice in Australia. Australian Universities Review(n), 36-46.

Cyert, R. M., & Goodman, P. S. (1997). Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 45-57. doi:10.1016/s0090-2616(97)90036-x

D'Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537-558. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs010

D'Este, P., & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in regional science, 89(2), 335-350. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00292.x

D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z

Dale, C., Osegowitsch, T., & Collinson, S. (2014). Disintegration and de-internationalization: changing vertical and international scope and the case of the oil and gas industry. Advances in International Management, 27(1), 487-516.

Das, A., & Jedlicka, A. (1993). Social impact analysis on technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 18(1), 49-54. doi:10.1007/bf02178118

Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galan Muros, V., & Meerman, A. (2011 ). The State of European University‐ Business Cooperation. Study on the cooperation between Higher Education Institutions and public and private organisations in Europe. Final Report. Retrieved from Münster University of Applied Sciences http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/uni-business-cooperation_en.pdf

Davies, R. J., & Herringshaw, L. G. (2016). How should fracking research be funded? Research Ethics, 12(2), 116-118. doi:10.1177/1747016115605871

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/uni-business-cooperation_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/uni-business-cooperation_en.pdf

239

Davies, S. R. (2018). An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity,. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y

De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy, 41(9), 1666-1682. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.026

de Melo-Martín, I., Hays, J., & Finkel, M. L. (2014). The role of ethics in shale gas policies. Science of The Total Environment, 470–471(0), 1114-1119. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.088

de Rijke, K. (2013a). The Agri-Gas Fields of Australia: Black Soil, Food, and Unconventional Gas. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 35(1), 41-53. doi:10.1111/cuag.12004

de Rijke, K. (2013b). Coal Seam Gas and Social Impact Assessment: An Anthropological Contribution to Current Debates and Practices. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 15(3).

de Rijke, K. (2013c). Hydraulically fractured: Unconventional gas and anthropology. Anthropology Today, 29(2), 13-17. doi:10.1111/1467-8322.12017

de Rijke, K., Munro, P., & Zurita, M. d. L. M. (2016). The Great Artesian Basin: A Contested Resource Environment of Subterranean Water and Coal Seam Gas in Australia. Society & Natural Resources, 29(6), 696-710. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1122133

De Winter, J., & Kosolosky, L. (2013). The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 757-774. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9394-3

Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321-342.

Department Accountability Office. (2008). DOE Could Enhance the Project Selection Process for Government Oil and Natural Gas Research. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284652.html

Department of Employment Economic Development and Innovation. (2009). Blueprint for Queensland’s LNG industry. Retrieved from Brisbane: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2009/aug/lng%20impacts%20review/Attachments/LNG%20Industry.pdf.

Department of Industry Innovation and Science. (2016). Australian Innovation System Report. Retrieved from Canberra:

Department of Industry Innovation and Science. (2017). Australian Innovation System Report. In. Canberra: Office of the Chief Economist, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS).

Derrick, G., & Nickson, A. (2014). Invisible Intermediaries: A Systematic Review into The Role of Research Management in University and Institutional Research Processes. Journal of Research Administration, 45(2), 11-45.

Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B., & Silva, M. (2011). Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy, 36(2), 197-203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016

Dignum, M., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Pesch, U., & Taebi, B. (2015). Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1-21. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9685-6

Dill, D. D. (1990). University Industry Research Collaborations - An Analysis of Interorganisational Relationships. R and D Management, 20(2), 123-129. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1990.tb00690.x

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.088

http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284652.html

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2009/aug/lng%20impacts%20review/Attachments/LNG%20Industry.pdf

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2009/aug/lng%20impacts%20review/Attachments/LNG%20Industry.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016

240

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., . . . Lyman, G. H. (2000). The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. The Lancet, 356(9230), 635-638.

Doberneck, D. M., Glass, C. R., & Schweitzer, J. (2010). From Rhetoric to Reality: A Typology of Publically Engaged Scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(4), 5-35.

Dodgson, M. (1989). Research and technology policy in Australia: legitimacy in intervention. Science and Public Policy, 16(3), 159-166. doi:10.1093/spp/16.3.159

Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2010). Innovation: a very short introduction (Vol. 227.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dodgson, M., Hughes, A., Foster, J., & Metcalfe, S. (2011). Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia. Research Policy, 40(9), 1145-1156. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.015

Dodgson, M., & Staggs, J. (2012). Government policy, university strategy and the academic entrepreneur: the case of Queensland’s Smart State Institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 567-585. doi:10.1093/cje/bes004

Dooley, K. E. (2007). Viewing Agricultural Education Research through a Qualitative Lens. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 32-42.

Dooley, L., & Kirk, D. (2007). University-industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316-332. doi:10.1108/14601060710776734

Douglas-Jones, R., & Wright, S. (2017). Mapping the Integrity Landscape: Organisations, Policies, Concepts. In Working Paper 27. Aarhus, Denmark: Centre for Higher Education Futures, Aarhus University.

Dowling, A. (2015). The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440927/bis_15_352_The_dowling_review_of_business-university_rearch_collaborations_2.pdf.

Driscoll, A. (2009). Carnegie's new community engagement classification: Affirming higher education's role in community. New Directions for Higher Education(147), 5-12.

Drori, G. S., Delmestri, G., & Oberg, A. (2015). The iconography of universities as institutional narratives. Higher Education, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9894-6

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2017). “Systematic Combining”: An approach to case research. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 27(4), 258-269. doi:10.1080/21639159.2017.1360145

Duncan, I. J., Garnett, A., & Underschultz, J. (2015). The Importance of Accuracy of Facts Supporting Justice Based Social License-to-Operate Arguments for CSG Development: Information From Four Decades of CBM Production in North America. Paper presented at the International Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia.

Durbin, P. T. (1992). Social responsibility in science, technology, and medicine. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.

Dutrénit, G., & Arza, V. (2010). Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organisations and industry: comparing four Latin American countries. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 541-553. doi:10.3152/030234210X512043

Eby, L. T., Hurst, C. S., & Butts, M. M. (2009). The redheaded stepchild in organizational and social science research. In C. Lance & R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440927/bis_15_352_The_dowling_review_of_business-university_rearch_collaborations_2.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440927/bis_15_352_The_dowling_review_of_business-university_rearch_collaborations_2.pdf

241

and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 221–244). New York: Routledge.

Edmondson, G., Valigra, L., Kenward, M., Husdon, R., Belfield, H., & Koekoek, P. (Eds.). (2012 ). Making Industry-University Partnerships Work - Lessons from successful collaborations. Brussels: Science Business Innovation Board AISBL.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550. doi:10.2307/258557

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Elliott, K., & Steel, D. (Eds.). (2017). Current Controversies in Values and Science. Londong: Routledge.

Elmuti, D., Abebe, M., & Nicolosi, M. (2005). An overview of strategic alliances between universities and corporations. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 115-129.

Enever, J., Jeffrey, R., & Wold, M. (2014 ). The birth of the coal seam gas industry in Australia: The role of research. In. University of Western Australia: Australasian Mining History Association.

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. In. doi:10.4135/9780857028044

Espig, M. (2018). Getting the science right: Queensland's coal seam gas development and the engagement with knowledge, uncertainty and environmental risks.

Espig, M., & de Rijke, K. (2016a). Navigating Coal seam Gas Fields: Ethnographic Challenges in Queensland, Australia. Practicing Anthropology, 38(3), 44-45.

Espig, M., & de Rijke, K. (2016b). Unconventional gas developments and the politics of risk and knowledge in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 82-90.

Espig, M., & de Rijke, K. (2018). Energy, Anthropology and Ethnography: On the Challenges of Studying Unconventional Gas Developments in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 214-223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.004

Estrada, I., de la Fuente, G., & Martín-Cruz, N. (2010). Technological joint venture formation under the real options approach. Research Policy, 39(9), 1185-1197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.015

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

Etzkowitz, H. (2011). Normative change in science and the birth of the Triple Helix. Social Science Information, 50(3-4), 549-568. doi:10.1177/0539018411411403

Etzkowitz, H. (2012). Triple helix clusters: boundary permeability at university-industry-government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 30(5), 766-779. doi:10.1068/c1182

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 346/2013/SID against the European Food Safety Authority ('EFSA'), (2015).

Evans, D., Gruba, P., & Zobel, J. (2013). How to Write a Better Thesis Melbourne: Melbourne University Press

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.004


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

242

Evans, G. R., & Packham, D. E. (2003). Ethical issues at the university-industry interface: A way forward? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(1), 3-16. doi:10.1007/s11948-003-0015-z

Evensen, D. (2016). Ethics and ‘fracking’: a review of (the limited) moral thought on shale gas development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/wat2.1152

Everingham, J.-A., Collins, N., Cavaye, J., Rifkin, W., Vink, S., Baumgartl, T., & Rodriguez, D. (2016). Energy from the foodbowl: Associated land-use conflicts, risks and wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 68-80. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.011

Everingham, J.-A., Collins, N., Rifkin, W., Rodriguez, D., Baumgartl, T., Cavaye, J., & Vink, S. (2014). How Farmers, Graziers, Miners, and Gas-Industry Personnel See Their Potential for Coexistence in Rural Queensland. SPE Economics & Management, 6(3), 122-130. doi:10.2118/167016-PA

Everingham, J.-A., Collins, N., Rodriguez, D., Cavaye, J., Vink, S., Rifkin, W., & Baumgartl, T. (2013). Energy resources from the food bowl: an uneasy co-existence. Identifying and managing cumulative impacts of mining and agriculture. Retrieved from Brisbane:

Fabbri, A., Holland, T. J., & Bero, L. A. (2018). Food industry sponsorship of academic research: investigating commercial bias in the research agenda. Public Health Nutrition, 21(18), 3422-3430. doi:10.1017/S1368980018002100

Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A. (2018). The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review. American Journal of Public Health, e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677

Fairweather, J. S. (1991). Managing Industry-University Research Relationships. Journal for Higher Education Management, 6(2), 7-14.

Farquhar, J. D. (2012). Case study research for business. Thousand Oaks, Calif; London [England]: SAGE.

Feng, F., Zhang, L., Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 118-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.009

Fernandes, G., Pinto, E. B., Araújo, M., Pontes, A. J., & Machado, R. J. (2016). Perceptions of Different Stakeholders on Managing Collaborative University-Industry R&D Funded Contracts.

Fernández-Zubieta, A., Andújar-Nagore, I., Giachi, S., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2016). New Organizational Arrangements for Public-Private Research Collaboration. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 80-103. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0292-1

Ferris, L. E., Singer, P. A., & Naylor, C. D. (2004). Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri/Apotex Affair in Toronto. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 25-29. doi:10.1136/jme.2003.005181

Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., Reider, D., & Martinuzzi, A. (2019). The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0114

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363

Ford, J. A., Steen, J., & Verreynne, M.-L. (2014). How environmental regulations affect innovation in the Australian oil and gas industry: going beyond the Porter Hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84(0), 204-213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.062

Ford, J. A., Steen, J., Verreynne, M.-L., Farrell, B., Marion, G., Naicker, S., . . . Kennedy, N. (2014). Confronting the productivity challenge in the high cost economy: Evidence from the Australian Oil and Gas Industry. In G. Roos & N. Kennedy (Eds.), Global perspectives on

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.062

243

achieving success in high and low cost operating environments (pp. 153-171). Hershey PA: ISI Global.

Ford, J. A., Verreynne, M.-L., & Steen, J. (2016). Measuring economic trends and benefits of CSG development on local businesses. Retrieved from Brisbane: https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/files/928/Report%20%20SME%20Study%20Trends%20and%20Benefits_web.pdf

Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., . . . Zöller, M. (2018). Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4

Foss, L. (2012). The University-industry Interface: A Collaborative Arena. In H. C. G. Johnsen & R. Ennals (Eds.), Creating Collaborative Advantage: Innovation and Knowledge Creation in Regional Economies (pp. 209-221). Farnham: Gower.

Franks, D. M., Davis, R., Bebbington, A. J., Ali, S. H., Kemp, D., & Scurrah, M. (2014). Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(21), 7576-7581. doi:10.1073/pnas.1405135111

Franz, N., Childers, J., & Sanderlin, N. (2012). Assessing the Culture of Engagement on a University Campus. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 5(2), 29-40.

Freckelton, I. R. (2016). Scholarly Misconduct: Law, Regulation, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biology, 13(6), e1002165.

Fromhold-Eisebith, M. (2004). Innovative milieu and social capital—complementary or redundant concepts of collaboration-based regional development? European Planning Studies, 12(6), 747-765.

Frynas, J. G. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas sector. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 2(3), 178-195. doi:10.1093/jwelb/jwp012

Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2015). Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Reviewing Theories and Setting New Agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 483-509. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12049

Fuchs, S., & Turner, J. H. (1986). "What Makes a Science 'Mature'?: Patterns of Organizational Control in Scientific Production". Sociological Theory, 4(2), 143-150. doi:10.2307/201884

Fujigaki, Y., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). Quality control and validation boundaries in a triple helix of university-industry-government: "Mode 2" and the future of university research. Social Science Information, 39(4), 635-655. doi:10.1177/053901800039004004

Fukugawa, N. (2013). Heterogeneity among science parks with incubators as intermediaries of research collaborations between startups and universities in Japan. International journal of technology transfer and commercialisation, 12(4), 231-262. doi:10.1504/ijttc.2013.071355

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L

Galan-Muros, V., & Plewa, C. (2016). What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessement. R and D Management, 46(2), 369-382. doi:10.1111/radm.12180

Galán-Muros, V., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., & Baaken, T. (2015). Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business? Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 184-205.

https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/files/928/Report%20%20SME%20Study%20Trends%20and%20Benefits_web.pdf

https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/files/928/Report%20%20SME%20Study%20Trends%20and%20Benefits_web.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L

244

Galis, V., & Hansson, A. (2012). Partisan Scholarship in Technoscientific Controversies: Reflections on Research Experience. Science as Culture, 21(3), 335-364. doi:10.1080/09505431.2011.644783

Gamage, P., & Sciulli, N. (2016). Sustainability Reporting by Australian Universities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12215

Gander, J. (1987). University Industry Research Linkages and Knowledge Transfers - A general equilibrium approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31(2), 117-130. doi:10.1016/0040-1625(87)90044-8

Garde Sánchez, R., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & López-Hernández, A. M. (2013). Online disclosure of university social responsibility: a comparative study of public and private US universities. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), 709-746. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.749976

Garousi, V., Petersen, K., & Ozkan, B. (2016). Challenges and best practices in industry-academia collaborations in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 79, 106-127. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.07.006

Garrett-Jones, S., & Turpin, T. (2012). Globalisation and the Changing Functions of Australian Universities. Science Technology and Society, 17(2), 233-274. doi:10.1177/097172181101700203

Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2010). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(5), 527-546. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9139-x

Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2013). Careers and Organisational Objectives: Managing Competing Interests in Cooperative Research Centres. In C. Boardman, D. Gray, & D. Rivers (Eds.), Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation - Government Policies, Industry Strategies and Organizational Dynamics (pp. 79-110). New York Springer

Garside, R. (2014). Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 67-79. doi:10.1080/13511610.2013.777270

Gasfields Commission Queensland. (2016). Overview of Legislation Governing the Onshore Gas Industry in Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/gasfields/gas-industry-development/overview-of-legislation-governing-onshore-gas-industry-in-qld.html

Gasfields Commission Queensland. (n.d.-a). About Queensland's onshore sedimentary basins. Gasfields Commission Queensland. (n.d.-b). Landholders. Retrieved from

http://www.gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/landholders/ Gattringer, R., Hutterer, P., & Strehl, F. (2014). Network-structured university-industry-

collaboration: values for the stakeholders. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 272-291. doi:doi:10.1108/EJIM-01-2013-0008

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures - Selected Essays (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.

Geisler, E. (1995). Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 217-229. doi:10.1080/09537329508524205

Geisler, E., & Rubenstein, A. (1989). University—Industry Relations: A Review of Major Issues. In A. N. Link & G. Tassey (Eds.), Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry—University—Government Relationship (pp. 43-62): Springer Netherlands.

Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018). Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61-69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012

http://www.gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/gasfields/gas-industry-development/overview-of-legislation-governing-onshore-gas-industry-in-qld.html

http://www.gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/gasfields/gas-industry-development/overview-of-legislation-governing-onshore-gas-industry-in-qld.html

http://www.gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/landholders/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012

245

Geoscience Australia. (2018). Australian Energy Resources Assessment, . Retrieved from Canberra: https://aera.ga.gov.au/

Gerring, J. (2006). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University-industry collaboration: a CoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 625-647. doi:10.1108/13673271111151992

Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93-114.

Gewin, V. (2016). Geoscience: Ups and downs. Nature, 530(7590), 371-372. Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The ‘‘What’’ and ‘‘How’’ of Case Study Rigor: Three Strategies

Based on Published Work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710-737. doi:10.1177/1094428109351319

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465-1474. doi:10.1002/smj.722

Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402(Supp), C81-84. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new

production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

Gillespie, N., Bond, C., Downs, V., & Staggs, J. (2016). Stakeholder trust in the Queensland CSG industry. APPEA Journal, 56, 239-245.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of management review, 15(4), 584-602.

Giroux, H. (2007). The university in chains: confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of 'valuable' university-industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38(6), 906-921. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.006

Glasgow, R. E. (2013). What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Education & Behavior, 40(3), 257-265.

Glenna, L. L., Tooker, J., Welsh, J. R., & Ervin, D. (2015). Intellectual Property, Scientific Independence, and the Efficacy and Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops. Rural Sociology, 80(2), 147-172. doi:10.1111/ruso.12062

Glerup, C., & Horst, M. (2014). Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31-50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

Goddard, J., Coombes, M., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (2014). Universities as anchor institutions in cities in a turbulent funding environment: vulnerable institutions and vulnerable places in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7(2), 307-325. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu004

Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. The Lancet, 381(9872), 1097-1098.

Godoy, E. S. (2017). Going Fossil Free: A Lesson in Climate Activism and Collective Responsibility. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Climate Change Research at Universities: Addressing the Mitigation and Adaptation Challenges (pp. 55-67). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Goozner, M., & Gable, E. (2008). Big Oil U. Retrieved from Washington: https://cspinet.org/file/5491/download?token=CHmh-kfs.

Gornall, J. (2015). Sugar: spinning a web of influence. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 350, h231. doi:10.1136/bmj.h231

https://aera.ga.gov.au/

https://cspinet.org/file/5491/download?token=CHmh-kfs

246

Grady-Benson, J., & Sarathy, B. (2016). Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: student-led organising for climate justice. Local Environment, 21(6), 661-681. doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1009825

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform Lib J, 26. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Gray, G., & Carroll, W. K. (2018). Mapping Corporate Influence and Institutional Corruption Inside Canadian Universities. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-018-9420-0

Gray, G. C. (2013). The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 629-634. doi:10.1111/jlme.12072

Green, R. (2015). Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Innovation System Issues Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Innovation_System/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Innovation_System/Interim_Report/c02.pdf.

Green, R. D., & Venkatachalam, P. (2005). Institutions of Higher Education as Engines of Small Business Development. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 10(2), 49-67. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1826528558?accountid=14723

Greenwood, R. (2008). Influencing ideas : a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 258-264.

Grudnoff, M. (2016). Independence Pay - Gas industry-funded research at the CSIRO. Retrieved from Canberra: http://www.tai.org.au/content/independence-pay

Gstraunthaler, T., & Proskuryakova, L. (2012). Enabling innovation in extractive industries in commodity based economies. Innovation : Management, Policy & Practice, 14(1), 19-32.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 163-194.

Guellec, D. (2013). Commercialising public research: new trends and strategies (97892641933149789264193321). Retrieved from Paris: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264193321-en

Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748-764.

Guide, V. D. R., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2007). Dancing with the devil: Partnering with industry but publishing in academia. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 531-546. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000251414900001

Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215-230. doi:10.1007/s11077-011-9128-4

Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004

Gunasekara, C. (2006). Dilemmas in Regional University--Industry Research Collaboration. Local Economy, 21(2), 166-179. Retrieved from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5637067658U721P

Gunn, M. (2012). Strategic engagement of the science-business media. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 18(2), 43-54. doi:10.5912/jcb.518

Hackett, E. J. (2014). Academic Capitalism. Science, Technology and Human Values. doi:10.1177/0162243914540219

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Innovation_System/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Innovation_System/Interim_Report/c02.pdf



http://search.proquest.com/docview/1826528558?accountid=14723

http://www.tai.org.au/content/independence-pay

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264193321-en


http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5637067658U721P

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5637067658U721P

247

Hagen, R. (2002). Globalization, university tranformation and economic regeneration: A UK case study of public/private sector partnership. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(3), 204-218.

Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers Inhibiting Industry from Partnering with Universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87-98. doi:10.1023/a:1007888312792

Hall, B. L., Jackson, E., Tandon, R., Fontan, J.-M., & Lall, N. (Eds.). (2013). Knowledge, democracy and action: Community-university research partnerships in global perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Hall, D. H. (1987). The interface between geoscience and industry: A case study of the interaction between research and the discovery and mining of ores for nuclear fuels. Scientometrics, 11(3-4), 199-216. doi:10.1007/BF02016592

Hall, J., Matos, S., Bachor, V., & Downey, R. (2014). Commercializing University Research in Diverse Settings: Moving Beyond Standardized Intellectual Property Management. Research-Technology Management, 57(5), 26-34.

Hall, J. G., Bainbridge, L., Buchan, A., Cribb, A., Drummond, J., Gyles, C., . . . Solomon, P. (2006). A meeting of minds: interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(7), 763-771. doi:10.1503/cmaj.060783

Hall, Z. W., & Scott, C. (2001). University-industry partnership. Science, 291(5504), 553-553. Hardie, L., & Smith Devetak, N. (2014). Research and Innovation Partnerships: Lessons and

Resources for the Unconventional Gas Sector. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal (OGEL), 12(3). Hardie, L., Smith Devetak, N., & Rifkin, W. (2016). Universities in contentious energy debates—

Science, democracy and coal seam gas in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 105–116.

Hare, J. (2012, 04/08/2012). Coal seam protest interrupts UQ open day The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coal-seam-protest-interrupts-uq-open-day/news-story/0356081ba355d8831af6bb0ea9770350

Harman, G. (1999). Australian science and technology academics and university-industry research links. Higher Education, 38(1), 83-103. doi:10.1023/a:1003711931665

Harman, G. (2001). University-Industry Research Partnerships in Australia: Extent, benefits and risks. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(3), 245-264. doi:10.1080/07294360120108340

Harman, G. (2002). Australian University-Industry Research Links: Researcher Involvement, Outputs, Personal Benefits and 'Withholding' Behaviour. Prometheus, 20(2), 143-158. doi:10.1080/08109020210137529

Harman, G. (2010). Australian university research commercialisation: perceptions of technology transfer specialists and science and technology academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/13600800903440568

Harman, G., & Ollif, C. (2004). Universities and government-sponsored contract research: an Australian case study. Prometheus, 22(4), 439-455. doi:10.1080/08109020412331311641

Harman, K. (2002). The research training experiences of doctoral students linked to Australian Cooperative Research Centres. Higher Education, 44(3-4), 469-492. doi:10.1023/a:1019894323421

Harris, M., & Holley, K. (2016). Universities as Anchor Institutions: Economic and Social Potential for Urban Development. In B. M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 393-439). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coal-seam-protest-interrupts-uq-open-day/news-story/0356081ba355d8831af6bb0ea9770350

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coal-seam-protest-interrupts-uq-open-day/news-story/0356081ba355d8831af6bb0ea9770350

248

Hartley, S., Pearce, W., & Taylor, A. (2016). Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy and Politics, 45(3), 361-377. doi:10.1332/030557316X14681503832036

Hayashi, T. (2003). Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university–industry–government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes. Research Policy, 32(8), 1421-1442. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00158-0

Hayter, C. S. (2016). Social Responsibility View of the Patent-Centric Linear Model of University Technology Transfer. Duquesne Law Review, 54, 7.

Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education The Battle for World-Class Excellence Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healy, D. (2002). In the grip of the python: Conflicts at the university-industry interface. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(1), 59-71. doi:10.1007/s11948-003-0020-2

Heede, R. (2014). Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. An Interdisciplinary, International Journal Devoted to the Description, Causes and Implications of Climatic Change, 122(1), 229-241. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y

Heitman, E., Litewka, S., & Vasconcelos, S. (2016). Education in Research Integrity and Governance of Science in the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity.

Heitor, M. (2015). How university global partnerships may facilitate a new era of international affairs and foster political and economic relations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 276-293. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.005

Hens, L., Cabello-Eras, J. J., Sagastume-Gutiérez, A., Garcia-Lorenzo, D., Cogollos-Martinez, J. B., & Vandecasteele, C. (2017). University–industry interaction on cleaner production. The case of the Cleaner Production Center at the University of Cienfuegos in Cuba, a country in transition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(Part I), 63-68. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.105

Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373-385.

Hernández, D. (2015). Sacrifice along the energy continuum: a call for energy justice. Environmental Justice, 8(4), 151-156.

Hickey, A. (2015). The Economies of Engagement: The nature of university engagement in the corporate university. Social Alternatives, 34(2), 20-26.

Hicks, D., & Hamilton, K. (1999). Does university-industry collaboration adversely affect university research? Issues in science and technology, 15(4), 74-75. Retrieved from http://issues.org/15-4/realnumbers-4/

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2016). University Knowledge Exchange (KE) Framework: good practice in technology transfer. In Report to the UK higher education sector and HEFCE by the McMillan group. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards), (2015). Hindle, K., & Yencken, J. (2004). Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new

technology based firms: an integrated model. Technovation, 24(10), 793-803. Hirschman, A. O. (1977). A generalized linkage approach to development, with special reference to

staples. Economic development and cultural change, 25((Supplement 1977)), 67-98. Hockaday, T. (2013). Phases of growth in university technology transfer. Les Nouvelles, 48(4), 275-

279.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00158-0


http://issues.org/15-4/realnumbers-4/

249

Hoekstra, A., Talsma, J., & Kaptein, M. (2016). Integrity Management as Interorganizational Activity: Exploring Integrity Partnerships That Keep the Wheel in Motion. Public Integrity, 18(2), 167-184. doi:10.1080/10999922.2015.1073502

Hofmeister, J. (2011). Why we hate the oil companies: straight talk from an energy insider. New York: Macmillan.

Hollander, R. (2017). Research Ethics and the Norwegian Oil Industry. In. Online Ethics Centre for Engineering and Science: National Academy of Engineering

Horbach, S., & Halffman, W. (2017). Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: Mapping contrasts in the language of ‘scientific integrity’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1461-1485.

Howells, M. (2013, 04/09/2013). University of Queensland investigates paper by ex-staff member citing 'no evidence' of research. ABC Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/uq-investigates-study-that-might-never-have-happened/4932648

Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Steffenson, R. (2008). Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 321-340. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsn013

Hughes, A. (2011). Open innovation, the Haldane principle and the new production of knowledge: science policy and university–industry links in the UK after the financial crisis. Prometheus, 29(4), 411-442. doi:10.1080/08109028.2011.639565

Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 723-750. doi:10.1093/cje/bes017

Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological themes: theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86-106.

Hussinger, K., & Pellens, M. (2018). Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. Research Policy, 48(2), 516-530. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012

Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289-307. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1

Indulska, M., & Recker, J. (2010). Design science in IS research: a literature analysis. In D. Hart & S. Gregor (Eds.), Information Systems Foundations: The Role of Design Science (pp. 285-303). Canberra: ANU Press.

International Energy Agency. (2011 ). World Energy Outlook 2011 – Special Report – Are we entering the Golden Age of Gas? . Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf,

International Energy Agency. (2016). World Energy Outlook 2016. Paris: IEA. Ioannidis, J. P. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 7(6), 645-654. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2.

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2010). Different Modes of Innovation and the Challenge of Connecting

Universities and Industry: Case Studies of Two Regional Industries in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1993-2008. doi:10.1080/09654313.2010.516523

Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79(0), 1-10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/uq-investigates-study-that-might-never-have-happened/4932648

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/uq-investigates-study-that-might-never-have-happened/4932648

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

250

Jain, S., & George, G. (2007). Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 535-567. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm017

Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007

Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Lê, J. K. (2014). Producing persuasive findings: Demystifying ethnographic textwork in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 12(4), 274-287. doi:10.1177/1476127014554575

Jensen, P. H. (2013). Choosing Your PhD Topic (and Why It Is Important). Australian Economic Review, 46(4), 499-507. doi:10.1111/1467-8462.12038

Jirawan, P., Leela, T., & Mark, S. (2016). University social responsibility and brand image of private universities in Bangkok. International journal of educational management, 30(4), 571-591. doi:10.1108/IJEM-10-2014-0136

Johnson, D. R. (2017). A fractured profession: Commercialism and conflict in academic science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2015). University-industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope: A study of the knowledge intensive business services sector. Papers in regional science, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/pirs.12185

Johnston, J., Banerjee, M. P., & Geller, G. (2015). Trustworthy Research Institutions: The Challenging Case of Studying the Genetics of Intelligence. Hastings Center Report, 45(S1), S59-S65. doi:10.1002/hast.501

Jones, J., & Corral de Zubielqui, G. (2017). Doing well by doing good: A study of university-industry interactions, innovationess and firm performance in sustainability-oriented Australian SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 262-270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.036

Jongbloed, B. (2015). Universities as Hybrid Organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 45(3), 207-225. doi:10.1080/00208825.2015.1006027

Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303-324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2

Kabanoff, B., & Brown, S. (2008). Knowledge Structures of Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders: Content, Structure, Stability, and Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2), 149-171. doi:10.2307/20142008

Kara, H. (2017). Research and evaluation for busy practitioners: a time-saving guide (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

Kelli, A., Mets, T., Jonsson, L., Pisuke, H., & Adamsoo, R. (2013). The Changing Approach in Academia-Industry Collaboration: from Profit Orientation to Innovation Support Trames : A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 17(3), 215-241.

Kelly, L. (2011). Australia's Emerging CBM LNG Industry. Japan Oil, Gas and Metal National Corporation Sydney Office Analysis, 45(1), 43-60. Retrieved from https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf

Kempner, J. (2008). The chilling effect: how do researchers react to controversy? PLoS Med, 5(11), e222.

Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industry complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.036

https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf

https://oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_project_/pdf/4/4294/201101_043a.pdf

251

Kentish, S., & Beck, V. (2014). Unconventional gas: shale gas and coal seam gas. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 126(2), 27-28. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RS14027

Keogh, L. (2013). Frack or Frack off? Coal Seam Gas. Queensland Historical Atlas. Retrieved from http://www.qhatlas.com.au/frack-or-frack-off-coal-seam-gas

Kezar, A. J. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429-459.

Kidd, R., & Miles, J. (2014, 06/01/2014). The University of Queensland gives scholarships on Christmas Eve then retracts them when the new year starts. Courier Mail. Retrieved from https://www.couriermail.com.au/the-university-of-queensland-gives-scholarships-on-christmas-eve-then-retracts-them-when-the-new-year-starts/news-story/111d2bded33de9bc72f7043fef335aa2

King, G. E. (2012). Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference.

King’s College London and Digital Science. (2015). The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. Retrieved from Bristol, UK:

Kitagawa, F. (2012). Universities and Spatiality in Regional Knowledge Economies. In Universities in the Knowledge Economy: Higher Education Organisation and Global Change (pp. 103-117).

Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (1996). Stimulation of technology-based small firms - A case study of university-industry cooperation. Technovation, 16(4), 187-193. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(95)00052-6

Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37(8), 1224-1240. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.014

Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research. 2006, 7(1). doi:10.17169/fqs-7.1.75

Köhler, T. (2016, 09//). From the Editors: On Writing Up Qualitative Research in Management Learning and Education, Editorial. Academy of Management Learning & Education, pp. 400-418.

Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., Wenger, N. S., & Lew, V. (1998). Evaluation of the Research Norms of Scientists and Administrators Responsible for Academic Research Integrity. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1), 41-47.

Koschatzky, K., Kroll, H., Meyborg, M., Stahlecker, T., Dwertmann, A., & Huber, M. (2015). Public-private partnerships in Research and Innovation - Case studies from Australia, Sweden and the United States. In Working Papers Firms and Region No. R2/2015. Karlsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI

Kretser, A., Murphy, D., Bertuzzi, S., Abraham, T., Allison, D. B., Boor, K. J., . . . Yada, R. (2019). Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3

Kretser, A., Murphy, D., & Dwyer, J. (2017). Scientific integrity resource guide: Efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(1), 163-180.

Kretz, A., & Sá, C. (2013). Third Stream, Fourth Mission: Perspectives on University Engagement with Economic Relevance. Higher Education Policy, 26(4), 497-506. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.32

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RS14027

http://www.qhatlas.com.au/frack-or-frack-off-coal-seam-gas

https://www.couriermail.com.au/the-university-of-queensland-gives-scholarships-on-christmas-eve-then-retracts-them-when-the-new-year-starts/news-story/111d2bded33de9bc72f7043fef335aa2




http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.32

252

Krimsky, S. (2013). Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research?: An Inquiry into the “Funding Effect” Hypothesis. Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(4), 566-587. doi:10.1177/0162243912456271

Ladd, J. (1980). The quest for a code of professional ethics: An intellectual and moral confusion. In R. Chalk, M. S. Frankel, & S. B. Chafer (Eds.), AAAS Professional Ethics Project: Professional Ethics Activities in the Scientific and Engineering Societies (pp. 154-159). Washington DC: AAAS.

Lahn, G., & Stevens, P. (2017). The curse of the one-size-fits-all fix: Re-evaluating what we know about extractives and economic development. In WIDER Working Paper. Helsinki: The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER),.

Lakpetch, P., & Lorsuwannarat, T. (2012). Knowledge transfer effectiveness of university-industry alliances. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(2), 128-186. doi:10.1108/19348831211227819

Lam, A. (2010). From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’?: Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University—Industry Boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307-340. doi:10.1177/0306312709349963

Lam, A. (2011). University-industry collaboration: careers and knowledge governance in hybrid organisational space. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2(1-2), 135-145. doi:10.1504/ijsba.2011.038137

Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354-1368. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002

Lane, J. (2010). Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464(7288), 488. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of management review,

24(4), 691-710. Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of

University Activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441-456. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169

Larrán Jorge, M., & Andrades Peña, F. J. (2017). Analysing the Literature on University Social Responsibility: a Review of Selected Higher Education Journals. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(4), 302– 319.

Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: an overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40(1), 6-19. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.013

Lebeau, L.-M., Laframboise, M.-C., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2008). The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: the Canadian case, 1980–2005. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 227-232. doi:10.3152/095820208x331685

Lee, K.-J. (2011). From interpersonal networks to inter-organizational alliances for university-industry collaborations in Japan: the case of the Tokyo Institute of Technology. R and D Management, 41(2), 190-201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00633.x

Lee, K.-J. (2014). Development of boundary-spanning organisations in Japanese universities for different types of university-industry collaborations: a resource dependence perspective. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 22(2), 204-218. doi:10.1080/19761597.2014.973164

Lee, K.-J., Ohta, T., & Kakehi, K. (2010). Formal boundary spanning by industry liaison offices and the changing pattern of university–industry cooperative research: the case of the University of Tokyo. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(2), 189-206. doi:10.1080/09537320903498538

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169

253

Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843-863. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00857-8

Lee, Y. S. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133. doi:10.1023/A:1007895322042

Legge, J. D. (1973). The Univeristy, Its Innovatory Role in Society. In IAU (Ed.), The Social Responsibility of the University in Asian Countries (Vol. 12, pp. 69-77). Paris: IAU.

Lehtimaki, H., & Peltonen, T. (2013). Relations of power and knowledge: university-industry relations in business studies in Finland. Higher Education, 66(2), 203-216. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9599-z

Leonard, R., McCrea, R., & Walton, A. (2016). Perceptions of community responses to the unconventional gas industry: The importance of community agency. Journal of Rural Studies, 48, 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.09.002

Lewis, S., Baird, P., Evans, R. G., & Ghali, W. A. (2001). Dancing with the porcupine: rule for governing the university-industry relationship. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165(6), 783-785.

Lieberwitz, R. L. (2005). Confronting the privatization and commercialization of academic research: an analysis of social implications at the local, national, and global levels. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 109-152.

Lightowler, C., & Knight, C. (2013). Sustaining knowledge exchange and research impact in the social sciences and humanities: investing in knowledge broker roles in UK universities. Evidence and Policy, 9(3), 317-334. doi:10.1332/174426413X662644

Lind, F., Styhre, A., & Aaboen, L. (2013). Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 70-91. doi:10.1108/14601061311292869

Link, A. N. (2015). Capturing knowledge: Private gains and public gains from university research partnerships. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 139-206.

Liyanage, S., & Mitchell, H. (1994). Strategic Management of Interactions at the Academic-Industry interface. Technovation, 14(10), 641-655. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(94)90111-2

Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043-1057. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.006

Logar, C., M., Ponzurick, T., G., Spears, J., R. , & France, K. R. (2001). Commercializing intellectual property: a university-industry alliance for new product development. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(4), 206-217. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005672

Loi, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values. Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 855-870. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv012

López-Fernández Ma, C., Serrano-Bedia Ana, M., & Pérez-Pérez, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship and Family Firm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of An Emerging Field. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622-639. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12161

Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., & Wilkinson, K. (2013). Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 207-222. doi:10.1080/21582041.2013.769617

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., . . . Hugé, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1-18.

Luke, H., den Exter, K. A., Boyd, W. E., Lloyd, D. J., & Roche, B. (2013). Developing the Lismore CSG Poll - A University/Local Government Collaboration. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 15(3).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00857-8

254

Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London Pinter Publishers.

Lux, C. (2002). Conflicts of interest in Germany: A legal perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 327-336. doi:10.1007/s11948-002-0052-z

Lyons, K. (2014). Partner or Perish?: The convergence of public and private interests pose new questions for controversial university research Chain Reaction, 121, 32-34. Retrieved from http://www.foe.org.au/Partner%20or%20Perish

Lyons, K., & Richards, C. (2013). Mining universities research in today's mining-funded tertiary sector. Arena magazine, 124, 7-9.

Macdonald, S. (1986). Theoretically sound: practically useless? Government grants for industrial R&D in Australia. Research Policy, 15(5), 269-283. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90026-0

Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., . . . Velho, L. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 191-199. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.922249

Mahmud, S., & Bretag, T. (2013). Fostering Integrity in Postgraduate Research: An Evidence-Based Policy and Support Framework. Accountability in Research, 21(2), 122-137. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.847668

Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university-firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1341-1359. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.03.006

Mailhot, C., Matt, M., & Mesny, A. (2013). University-industry knowledge transfer as practice. International journal of technology transfer and commercialisation, 12(4), 173-192. doi:10.1504/ijttc.2013.071339

Makki, M., & van Vuuren, K. (2016). Place, identity and stigma: blocks and the ‘blockies’ of Tara, Queensland, Australia. GeoJournal, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10708-016-9730-2

Mardle, B. (2012). An innovations system for Australia’s minerals and mining sector: What works and what doesn’t in the context of Australia’s current public policy frameworks? (PhD ). University of Queensland Brisbane

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281-309.

Markides, C. (2007). In search of ambidextrous professors. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 762-768.

Martin, B. (2014). The Controversy Manual. Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing. Martin, B., & Richards, E. (1995). Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making. In

S. jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 506-526). Newbury Park, CA.,: Sage.

Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005-1014. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011

Marusic, A., Wager, E., Utrobicic, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Sambunjak, D. (2016). Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. The Cochrane Library.

Mascarenhas, C., Ferreira, J. J., & Marques, C. (2018). University–industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Science and Public Policy, 45(5), 708-718.

http://www.foe.org.au/Partner%20or%20Perish

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90026-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90026-0


255

Mason, A. (2015a). Growth Imperative: Intermediaries, Discourse Frameworks and the Artic. In R. H. Pincus (Ed.), Diplomacy on Ice : Energy and the Environment in the Arctic and Antarctic (pp. 141-150). New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

Mason, A. (2015b). Inside the energy salon: Installation and illusions of finality. Journal of Business Anthropology, 4(1), 36-53.

Mason, A., & Stoilkova, M. (2012). Corporeality of Consultant Expertise in Arctic Natural Gas Development. Journal of Northern Studies, 6(2), 83-96.

Mayer, T., & Steneck, N. (Eds.). (2012). Promoting research integrity in a global environment. Singapore: World Scientific Pubishing Company.

Maylor, H., Blackmon, K., & Huemann, M. (2017). Researching business and management (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave.

McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2017). University business models in disequilibrium – engaging industry and end users within university technology transfer processes. R&D Management, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/radm.12265

McCabe, A., Parker, R., & Cox, S. (2016). The ceiling to coproduction in university–industry research collaboration. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(3), 560-574. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1107888

McCambridge, J., & Hartwell, G. (2015). Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? A preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies. Drug and Alcohol Review, 34(1), 58-66. doi:10.1111/dar.12125

McCarthy, E., & Kelty, C. (2010). Responsibility and nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science, 40(3), 405-432. doi:10.1177/0306312709351762

McClelland, C. J., Smith, J. M., & Smith, N. M. (2016, 12-15 Oct. 2016). Bringing corporate social responsibility into the petroleum engineering classroom. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

McComas, K. A. (2012). Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(4), 699-717. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9264-4

McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2014). A conceptual framework for investigating community wellbeing and resilience. Rural Society, 23(3), 270-282.

McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2016). Developing a Model of Community Wellbeing and Resilience in Response to Change. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 129(1), 195-214. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1099-y

McGarity, T. O. (2010). A movement, lawsuit, and the integrity of sponsored law and economics research. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 21(1), 51-80.

McHugh, B. (2012). Uni centre begins research on coal seam gas Coal seam gas water pond on Meadowbrook Station. UQ CSG Research Centre launches first round of projects. ABC Rural. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/news/content/201208/s3573039.htm

McLennan, G., Osborne, T., & Vaux, J. (2005). Universities in ‘the condition of publicity’: how LSE engages with the wider world. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(3), 241-260. doi:10.1080/14767720500347635

McLeod, M. S., Payne, G. T., & Evert, R. E. (2016). Organizational Ethics Research: A Systematic Review of Methods and Analytical Techniques. In Journal of Business Ethics (Vol. 134, pp. 429-443).

McNutt, M., & Nerem, R. M. (2017). Research integrity revisited. Science, 356(6334), 115. doi:10.1126/science.aan3552

http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/news/content/201208/s3573039.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/news/content/201208/s3573039.htm

256

Mendoza, P. (2015). Industry-Academia Linkages: Lessons from Empirical Studies and Recommendations for Future Inquiry. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 30, pp. 469-523): Springer International Publishing.

Mercer, A., de Rijke, K., & Dressler, W. (2014). Silences in the boom: coal seam gas, neoliberalizing discourse, and the future of regional Australia. Journal of Political Ecology, 21, 279-302.

Mets, T., Kelli, A., Mets, A., & Tiimann, T. (2016). From Patent Counting Towards the System of IP Strategic Indicators. Engineering Economics, 27(3), 316-324. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.27.3.13799

Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835-851. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8

Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanism. R and D Management, 33(2), 107-115. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00286

Meyer, S. B., & Lunnay, B. (2013). The application of abductive and retroductive inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research. Sociological Research Online, 18(1), 1-11.

Miall, C. E., & Miall, A. D. (2002). The Exxon Factor: The Roles of Corporate and Academic Science in the Emergence and Legitimation of a New Global Model of Sequence Stratigraphy. Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 307-334.

Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251-285. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00063-8

Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: a case study. PLoS medicine, 7(8), e1000318.

Miettinen, R., Tuunainen, J., & Esko, T. (2015). Epistemological, Artefactual and Interactional–Institutional Foundations of Social Impact of Academic Research. Minerva, 53(3), 257-277. doi:10.1007/s11024-015-9278-1

Miller, F. A., Painter-Main, M., Axler, R., Lehoux, P., Giacomini, M., & Slater, B. (2015). Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit. Health Expectations, 18(6), 2356-2374. doi:10.1111/hex.12205

Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R and D Management, 44(3), 265-287. doi:10.1111/radm.12064

Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2016). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R and D Management, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/radm.12228

Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., & Puthusserry, P. (2016). Knowledge transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: An absorptive capacity perspective. R and D Management, 46(2), 383-399. doi:10.1111/radm.12182

Mills, J., Harrison, H., Birks, M., & Franklin, R. (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,, 18(1).

Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 644-665. doi:10.1002/smj.2036

Mintz, S., Savage, A., & Carter, R. (2010). Commercialism and universities: An ethical analysis. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(1), 1-19.

Mirowski, P. (2012). The Modern Commercialization of Science is a Passel of Ponzi Schemes. Social Epistemology, 26(3-4), 285-310. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.697210

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00063-8

257

Mirowski, P., & Van Horn, R. (2005). The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science, 35(4), 503-548.

Mitchell, E., & Angus, D. (2016, 8 February ). From good news for business to good for the news business. Unconventional Oil and Gas. Retrieved from http://www.unconventionaloilandgas.com.au/from-good-news-for-business-to-good-for-the-news-business/

Molinatti, G., & Simonneau, L. (2015). A Socioenvironmental Shale Gas Controversy: Scientists’ Public Communications, Social Responsibility and Collective Versus Individual Positions. Science Communication, 37(2), 190-216. doi:10.1177/1075547014560827

Montreal Statement n Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. (2013). In. Montreal: 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity.

Moon, J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1167-1177.

Moran, C. (2012). Coal Seam Gas: Context, Issues and some Solutions. In Presentation to the Queensland Petroleum & Exploration Association (QUPEX) Brisbane: University of Queensland.

Morandi, V. (2013). The management of industry-university joint research projects: how do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 69-92. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9228-5

Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mowery, D. C. (2011). Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 697-711. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9210-2

Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 115-127.

Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university-industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499-1508. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.023

Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2014). University regulation and university-industry interaction: a performance analysis of Italian academic departments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1047-1079. doi:10.1093/icc/dtu022

Muscio, A., & Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived Obstacles to University-Industry Collaboration: Results from a Qualitative Survey of Italian Academic Departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), 410-429. doi:10.1080/13662716.2014.969935

Narasimharao, B. P. R. (2010). Biotechnology education and societal demands: challenges faced by biotechnology and human resources development. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(1), 72-90. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111011024568

Narula, R., & Santangelo, G. D. (2012). Location and collocation advantages in international innovation. Multinational Business Review, 20(1), 6-25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15253831211217161

National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. Washington: National Academies Press.

http://www.unconventionaloilandgas.com.au/from-good-news-for-business-to-good-for-the-news-business/

http://www.unconventionaloilandgas.com.au/from-good-news-for-business-to-good-for-the-news-business/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111011024568

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15253831211217161

258

National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology. (2014). Regarding the assessment of research ethics in petroleum research. In. Oslo: Norwegian National Committees for Research Ethics.

National Health and Medical Research Council & Australian Research Council & Universities Australia. (2018). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Retrieved from Canberra: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

Natural Resource Governance Institute. (2015). Open Source Data on Oil, Gas and Mining Payments. Retrieved from www.resourceprojects.org

Navarro, M. (2012, 20/11/2012). SUNY Buffalo Shuts Down Its Institute on Drilling. New York Times, p. A21. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/nyregion/suny-buffalo-will-end-controversial-fracking-institute.html

Navi, M., Skelly, C., Taulis, M., & Nasiri, S. (2015). Coal seam gas water: potential hazards and exposure pathways in Queensland. International journal of environmental health research, 25(2), 162-183.

Nelson, C. (2013). Beware: integrity at risk. The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE(2119), 40-45.

Nelson, R. R. (Ed.) (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nestle, M. (2013). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ng, L. L., & Pemberton, J. (2013). Research-based communities of practice in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1522-1539.

Ngoasong, M. Z. (2014 ). How international oil and gas companies respond to local content policies in petroleum-producing developing countries: A narrative enquiry. Energy Policy, 73, 471-479 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.048

Nguyen, T. L. H., & Meek, V. L. (2015). Key Considerations in Organizing and Structuring University Research. Journal of Research Administration, 46(1), 41-62.

Nielsen, C. (2016). Getting value for money from your science park. Public Money and Management, 36(7), 539-546. doi:10.1080/09540962.2016.1237165

Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity.

Nyman, G. S. (2015). University-business-government collaboration: from institutes to platforms and ecosystems. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1-20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0014-x

Nzinga, K., Rapp, D. N., Leatherwood, C., Easterday, M., Rogers, L. O., Gallagher, N., & Medin, D. L. (2018). Should social scientists be distanced from or engaged with the people they study? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11435-11441.

O'Mara, M. P. (2012). Beyond town and gown: university economic engagement and the legacy of the urban crisis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 234-250. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9185-4

O'Neill, O. (2015). Integrity and Quality in Universities: Accountability, Excellence and Success. Humanities, 4(1), 109-117. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/4/1/109

O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421-437.

https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

file:///F:/Users/Liz/Documents/www.resourceprojects.org

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/nyregion/suny-buffalo-will-end-controversial-fracking-institute.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/nyregion/suny-buffalo-will-end-controversial-fracking-institute.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.048

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0014-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9185-4

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/4/1/109

259

OECD. (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Olmos-Penuela, J., Castro-Martinez, E., & D'Este, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy, 43(4), 696-706. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.004

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. (2016). 7 steps to a comprehensive literature review : a multimodal and cultural approach London: SAGE.

Orecchini, F., Valitutti, V., & Vitali, G. (2012). Industry and academia for a transition towards sustainability: advancing sustainability science through university-business collaborations. Sustainability Science, 7, 57-73. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2013. Retrieved from Brussels:

Orozco, J., & Ruiz, K. (2010). Quality of interactions between public research organisations and firms: lessons from Costa Rica. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 527-540. doi:10.3152/030234210x512034

Orr, K., & Bennett, M. (2012). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 487-495.

Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 419-438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00027-4

Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24-43. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.24.14275

Owen, J. R., & Kemp, D. (2014). ‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base. Resources Policy, 41(0), 91-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.03.006

Owen, R. (2014). The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's commitment to a framework for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 113-117.

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093

Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation (pp. 27-50). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Parsons, A. (2014). Literature review on social responsibility in higher education. (Master of Arts (M.A.), International Community Development). University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804-1836. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods: SAGE Publications, inc. Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and

definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32. Perkmann, M., Fini, R., Ross, J.-M., Salter, A., Silvestri, C., & Tartari, V. (2015). Accounting for

universities' impact: using augmented data to measure academic engagement and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00027-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.03.006

260

commercialization by academic scientists. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 380-391. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv020

Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539-552. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.007

Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How Should Firms Evaluate Success in University-Industry Alliances? A Performance Measurement System. R and D Management, Vol. 41(No. 2), pp. 202-216.

Perkmann, M., & Schildt, H. (2015). Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44(5), 1133-1143. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.006

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., . . . Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884-1891. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.009

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033-1065. doi:10.1093/icc/dtp015

Perrons, R. K. (2014). How innovation and R&D happen in the upstream oil & gas industry: Insights from a global survey. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 124, 301-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.027

Perrons, R. K., Burgers, H., & Newton, C. (2018). Who Are the Innovators in the Upstream Oil & Gas Industry? Insights From the 2017 SPE Global Innovation Survey. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/191464-MS

Perry, M., & Win, S. (2013). An Evaluation of PRME's contribution to responsibility in higher education.(Principles for Responsible Management Education). Journal of Corporate Citizenship(49), 48.

Pertuze, J. A. (2013 ). The coevolution of industry-university relationships and firm strategy: evidence from the forest products industry Paper presented at the Altec 2013 Conference

Pertuzé, J. A., Calder, E. S., Greitzer, E. M., & Lucas, W. A. (2010). Best Practices for Industry-University Collaboration Mit Sloan Management Review, 51(4), 83-90.

Petruzzelli, A. M., & Rotolo, D. (2015). Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations. Management Decision, 53(9), 2088-2106. doi:10.1108/MD-05-2014-0256

Pfotenhauer, S. M., Wood, D., Roos, D., & Newman, D. (2016). Architecting complex international science, technology and innovation partnerships (CISTIPs): A study of four global MIT collaborations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 38-56. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.006

Philbin, S. P. (2013, July 28 2013-Aug. 1 2013). Managing university-industry research partnerships through a process of alignment. Paper presented at the Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET), 2013 Proceedings of PICMET '13:.




http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.027

https://doi.org/10.2118/191464-MS


261

Philbin, S. P., Jones, D., Brandon, N. P., & Hawkes, A. D. (2014, 27-31 July 2014). Exploring research institutes: Structures, functioning and typology. Paper presented at the Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET), Portland.

Pickersgill, M. (2012). The Co-production of Science, Ethics, and Emotion. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(6), 579-603.

Pielke, R. A. J. (2007). The Honest Broker Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics Cambridge , UK Cambridge University Press

Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education, 1-17. doi:10.1080/21568235.2015.1044552

Pinto, H., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2016). What do stakeholders think about knowledge transfer offices? The perspective of firms and research groups in a regional innovation system. Industry and Innovation, 1-28. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1270820

Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). Systems of indicators to evaluate the performance of university-industry alliances: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Measuring Business Excellence, 17(3), 40-54. doi:10.1108/MBE-01-2013-0004

Plewa, C., Davey, T., Meerman, A., & Galan-Muros, V. (2017). The State of Australian University-Business Cooperation: The Business Perspective (U. I. I. N. University of Adelaide, Science Marketing, Munich Business School,, Trans.). In. Adelaide: University Industry Innovation Network,.

Plewa, C., Davey, T., Meerman, A., & Galan Muros, V. (2017). The State of Australian University-Business Cooperation: The Higher Education Institution Perspective. In. Adelaide: University Industry Innovation Network.

Plewa, C., Korff, N., Baaken, T., & Macpherson, G. (2013). University–industry linkage evolution: an empirical investigation of relational success factors. R and D Management, 43(4), 365-380. doi:10.1111/radm.12021

Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of university–industry linkages—A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21-44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.005

Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2006). The effect of a university's market orientation on the industry partner's relationship perception and satisfaction. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 2(2), 160-177. doi:10.1504/ijtip.2006.011306

Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2007). Key drivers of university-industry relationships: the role of organisational compatibility and personal experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(5), 370-382. doi:10.1108/08876040710773679

Plewa, C., Quester, P., & Baaken, T. (2005). Relationship Marketing and university-industry linkages: a conceptual framework Marketing Theory, 5(4), 433-456.

Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Rammer, C., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarking industry—science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy, 28(4), 247-258.

Ponchek, T. (2016). To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate? A Study of the Value of Innovation from a Sectoral Perspective. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 43-79. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0290-3

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.005

262

Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26-50.

Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862.

Prónay, S., & Buzás, N. (2015). The Evolution of Marketing Influence in the Innovation Process: Toward a New Science-to-Business Marketing Model in Quadruple Helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0248-5

Public Accountability Initiative. (2015). Frackademia Update. Retrieved from http://public-accountability.org/2015/09/frackademia-update/

QGC. (2015). New Neighbours - Final report Queensland Curtis Liquefied Natural Gas Project Social Impact Management Plan. Retrieved from Brisbane http://www.bg-group.com/assets/files/cms/QGC_Social_Impact_Management_Plan_SIMP.pdf.

Queensland Competition Authority. (2013). Queensland Gas Scheme Case Study – Discussion of Findings, Methodology, Inputs and Assumptions. Retrieved from Brisbane: http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/a9551ea0-d951-4486-a9ca-8727268497b2/Queensland-Gas-Scheme-Case-Study-Discussion-of-Fin.aspx

Queensland Office of the Chief Scientist. (2015). Queensland Science and Research Priorities. Retrieved from Brisbane: http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/strategy-priorities/queensland-science-and-research-priorities

Queensland Parliament. (2010). Record of Proceedings. In. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning

the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161-175. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(92)90033-E

Răceanu, A. R. (2016). Strategic Public Relations and University Entrepreneurship in Present European Context. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 4(1), 81-107. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=114509648&site=bsi-live

Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62-63, 42-54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.04.003

Randall, A. (2012). Coal seam gas - Toward a risk management framework for a novel intervention. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 29(2), 152-162.

Randall, A. (2015). Coal Seam Gas Recovery in Australia: Economic, Environmental and Policy Issues. In R. E. Hester & R. M. Harrison (Eds.), Fracking (pp. 151-180). Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.

Randazzese, L. P. (1996). Exploring university-industry technology transfer of CAD technology. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(4), 393-401.

Ranga, M., Hoareau, C., Durazzi, N., Etkowitz, H., Marcucci, P., & Usher, A. (2013). Study on University-Business Cooperation in the US. Retrieved from London: http://www.lse.ac.uk/businessAndConsultancy/LSEEnterprise/pdf/UBC-Final-report-May2013.pdf.

Ravasi, D., & Canato, A. (2013). How Do I Know Who You Think You Are? A Review of Research Methods on Organizational Identity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 185-204. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12008

Readfearn, G. (2012, 29/11/2012). CSG "frackademia" under the spotlight. Retrieved from https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/csg-frackademia-under-the-spotlight,4754

http://public-accountability.org/2015/09/frackademia-update/

http://public-accountability.org/2015/09/frackademia-update/

http://www.bg-group.com/assets/files/cms/QGC_Social_Impact_Management_Plan_SIMP.pdf

http://www.bg-group.com/assets/files/cms/QGC_Social_Impact_Management_Plan_SIMP.pdf

http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/a9551ea0-d951-4486-a9ca-8727268497b2/Queensland-Gas-Scheme-Case-Study-Discussion-of-Fin.aspx

http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/a9551ea0-d951-4486-a9ca-8727268497b2/Queensland-Gas-Scheme-Case-Study-Discussion-of-Fin.aspx

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/strategy-priorities/queensland-science-and-research-priorities

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/strategy-priorities/queensland-science-and-research-priorities

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(92)90033-E

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(92)90033-E

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=114509648&site=bsi-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=114509648&site=bsi-live

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.04.003

http://www.lse.ac.uk/businessAndConsultancy/LSEEnterprise/pdf/UBC-Final-report-May2013.pdf

http://www.lse.ac.uk/businessAndConsultancy/LSEEnterprise/pdf/UBC-Final-report-May2013.pdf

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/csg-frackademia-under-the-spotlight,4754

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/csg-frackademia-under-the-spotlight,4754

263

Reast, J., Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2013). Legitimacy-Seeking Organizational Strategies in Controversial Industries: A Case Study Analysis and a Bidimensional Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 139-153. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1571-4

Rentocchini, F., D'Este, P., Manjarres-Henriquez, L., & Grimaldi, R. (2014). The relationship between academic consulting and research performance: Evidence from five Spanish universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 32, 70-83. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2013.11.001

Resnik, D. B. (2015). Institutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9702-9

Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2013). Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research. Accountability in Research, 20(3), 184-205. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.788383

Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2016). The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31-46. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608

Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D. J., & Millar, K. (2016). A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 81-103. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6

Richardson, A. J., & Kachler, M. D. (2016). University Sustainability Reporting: A review of the literature and development of a model. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/odettepub/101

Rickinson, M., Sebba, J., & Edwards, A. (2011). Improving Research through User Engagement. In. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Rifkin, W., Uhlmann, V., Everingham, J.-A., & May, K. (2014). Tracking the Boom in Queensland’s Gasfields. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy(1). doi:10.5130/ijrlp.i1.2014.3843

Rifkin, W., Witt, K., Everingham, J.-A., & Uhlmann, V. (2015a). ‘Adaptive Assessment’of Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts. Impact Assessment in the Digital Era: 35th Annual Conferene of the International Association for Impact Assessment. N/A, Florence, Italy.

Rifkin, W., Witt, K., Everingham, J.-A., & Uhlmann, V. (2015b). Benefits and Burdens for Rural Towns from Queensland's Onshore Gas Development. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane.

Riordan, M., & Hoddeson, L. (1997). Crystal fire: the invention of the transistor and the birth of the information age. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Rivers, D., & Gray, D. (2013). Cooperative Research Centers as Small Business: Uncovering the Marketing and Recruiting Practices of University-Based Cooperative Research Centers. In Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation Government Policies, Industry Strategies, and Organizational Dynamics (pp. 175-198). New York: Springer.

Roessner, D., Bond, J., Okubo, S., & Planting, M. (2013). The economic impact of licensed commercialized inventions originating in university research. Research Policy, 42(1), 23-34. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.015

Rosenberg, N. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323-348. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm023

Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S., & Gill, D. J. (2017). Reconsidering the Value of Covert Research: The Role of Ambiguous Consent in Participant Observation. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 487-517. doi:10.1177/1094428117698745

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/odettepub/101

264

Rudy, A. P., Coppin, D., Konefal, J., Shaw, B. T., Eyck, T. T., Harris, C., & Busch, L. (2007). Universities in the Age of Corporate Science The UC Berkeley-Novartis Controversy. Philadelphia: Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

Russell, A. W. (2013). Improving Legitimacy in Nanotechnology Policy Development Through Stakeholder and Community Engagement: Forging New Pathways. Review of Policy Research, 30(5), 566-587. doi:10.1111/ropr.12037

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington DC: World Bank. Saltelli, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about? Futures, 91(Supplement C),

5-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010 Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a

critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3 Sandall, J., Cooksey, R., & Wright, V. (2011). A Systems Approach to Identifying and Managing

Opportunities and Constraints to Delivering Innovation Policy for Agriculture: An Analysis of the Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(5), 411-423.

Sandberg, J. (2005). How Do We Justify Knowledge Produced Within Interpretive Approaches? Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41-68.

Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the Scholarship of Engagement in Higher Education: A Strategic Review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91-104. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/127

Schensul, J. J. (2010). Engaged Universities, Community Based Research Organizations and Third Sector Science in a Global System. Human Organization, 69(4), 307-320.

Scherer, A. G. (2017). Theory Assessment and Agenda Setting in Political CSR: A Critical Theory Perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 387-410. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12137

Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931.

Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 273-298. doi:10.1111/joms.12203

Schiffman, R. (2013 10/01/2013). 'Frackademia': how Big Gas bought research on hydraulic fracturing The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/fracking-big-gas-university-research

Schmitt, R. W. (1997). Conflict or synergy: University‐industry research relations. Accountability in Research, 5(4), 251-254. doi:10.1080/08989629708573914

Schneider, J. (2015). Frackademia, divestment, and the limits of academic freedom. Paper presented at the Conference on Communication and the Environment, International Environmental Communication Association, Boulder, Co.

Schoenherr, J., & Williams-Jones, B. (2011). Research Integrity/Misconduct Policies of Canadian Universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 41(1), 1-17.

Schoonmaker, M. G., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Mode 3: A Proposed Classification Scheme for the Knowledge Economy and Society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(4), 556-577. doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0097-4

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010

http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/127

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/fracking-big-gas-university-research

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/fracking-big-gas-university-research

265

Schuelke-Leech, B.-A. (2013). Resources and research: An empirical study of the influence of departmental research resources on individual STEM researchers involvement with industry. Research Policy, 42(9), 1667-1678. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.010

Schuetze, H. G. (2010). The 'Third' Mission of Universities: Community Engagement and Service. In P. Inman & H. G. Schuetze (Eds.), The Community Engagement and Service Mission of Universities (pp. 13-31).

Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769-788.

Schweigert, B. S. (1987). University-industry partnership in research. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46(1), 229-231. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1987J060400014

Sehic, S., & Ashworth, P. (2018). Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice - Report from national case study: Australia Retrieved from Brisbane: https://www.rri-practice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/RRI-Practice_National_Case_Study_Report_AUSTRALIA.pdf

Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharif, N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research Policy, 35. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.001

Sharif, N., & Tang, H.-H. H. (2014). New trends in innovation strategy at Chinese universities in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. International Journal of Technology Management, 65(1-4), 300-318. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2014.060951

Sharman, A. (2015). The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge. In Working Paper No. 207: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

Shattock, M. (2013). University Governance, Leadership and Management in a Decade of Diversification and Uncertainty. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3), 217-233. doi:10.1111/hequ.12017

Shek, D. T. L., Yuen-Tsang, A. W. K., & Ng, E. C. W. (2017). University Social Responsibility (USR): Insight from the Historical Roots to the Contemporary Challenges. In D. T. L. Shek & R. M. Hollister (Eds.), University Social Responsibility and Quality of Life: A Global Survey of Concepts and Experiences (pp. 25-36). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Shell. (No date). Innovative Collaborations - Academia and Research. Retrieved from http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/innovating-together/innovative-collaborations.html

Shin, J. C., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1-13.

Shore, C., & McLauchlan, L. (2012). ‘Third mission’ activities, commercialisation and academic entrepreneurs. Social Anthropology, 20(3), 267-286. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8676.2012.00207.x

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640-660. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grm036

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence



http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/innovating-together/innovative-collaborations.html

http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/innovating-together/innovative-collaborations.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5

266

from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2), 115-142. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd. Simeth, M., & Organization, W. I. P. (2013). What makes companies pursue an open science

strategy? Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/wp6.pdf

Sims Gallagher, K., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., & Wilson, C. (2012). The Energy Technology Innovation System. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 137-162. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-060311-133915

Sinnewe, E., Charles, M. B., & Keast, R. (2016). Australia's Cooperative Research Centre Program: A transaction cost theory perspective. Research Policy, 45(1), 195-204. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.005

Skjærseth, J. B., & Skodvin, T. (2003). Climate change and the oil industry. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2017). Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9637-1

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Smith, A., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 262-279. doi:10.3758/BF03192778

Smith, P. (2012). Where is practice in inter-organizational R&D research? A literature review. Management Research, 10(1), 43-63. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1536-541211228559

Smyth, S. J., Williams, A., & Vasilescu, J. (2016). An assessment of Canadian university technology transfer offices. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 9(1), 32-50. doi:10.1504/ijipm.2016.079584

Solomons, M. (2012, 19/10/2012). University of Queensland misconduct scandal as dental school involved in Medicare rort. Courier Mail. Retrieved from https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/university-of-queensland-misconduct-scandal-as-dental-school-involved-in-medicare-rort/news-story/5cb4582fc6145fe71e14c8891142bdd5

Stahl, B. C. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(3), 207-211. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.19

Stahl, B. C., Timmermans, J., & Flick, C. (2017). Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies : On the implementation of responsible research and innovation. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 369-381.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stankiewicz, R. (1986). Academics and Entrepreneurs: developing university-industry relations.

London: Frances Pinter. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sörlin, S.

(2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/wp6.pdf


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1536-541211228559

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/university-of-queensland-misconduct-scandal-as-dental-school-involved-in-medicare-rort/news-story/5cb4582fc6145fe71e14c8891142bdd5



http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.19

267

Steinmo, M. (2015). Collaboration for Innovation: A Case Study on How Social Capital Mitigates Collaborative Challenges in University-Industry Research Alliances. Industry and Innovation, 22(7), 597-624. doi:10.1080/13662716.2015.1105127

Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2018). The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Research Policy, 47(10), 1964-1974. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.004

Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. doi:10.1007/PL00022268

Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340(6132), 552-553. Steneck, N. H., Mayer, T., & Anderson, M. (Eds.). (2015). Integrity In The Global Research Arena.

Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company. Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal

consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife, 3, e02956 (02951-02910).

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London: Penguin. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation.

Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating Academic–Industrial Research Relationships — Solving Problems

or Stifling Progress? New England Journal of Medicine, 353(10), 1060-1065. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb051758

Strassheim, H., & Kettunen, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 259-277.

Strengers, Y. A.-A. (2012). Interdisciplinarity and industry collaboration in doctoral candidature: tensions within and between discourses. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 546-559. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709498

Sun, Y., & Grimes, S. (2016). The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 17-40. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1778-0

Swayne, N. (2012). Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland: lessons in an adaptive environmental management approach? Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 29(2), 163-185.

Sykes, E. (2012, 29/05/2012). Concerns over funding of new Coal Seam Gas Centre. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/05/29/3513166.htm

Tandon, R., Hall, B. H., Lepore, W., & Singh, W. (Eds.). (2016). Knowledge and Engagement: Building Capacity for the Next Generation of Community Based Researchers. Canada Participatory Research in Asia.

Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: scientists' evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117-1147. doi:10.1093/icc/dts004

Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2014). In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy, 43(7), 1189-1203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.003

Tasker, M. E., & Packham, D. E. (1990). Freedom, funding and the future of the universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 181-195. doi:10.1080/03075079012331377501

Taylor, D. (2014). Toxic communities: Environmental racism, industrial pollution, and residential mobility. New York: NYU Press.

Taylor, M., Sandy, N., & Raphel, B. (2013). Background Paper on Community Concerns in Relation to Coal Seam Gas. Retrieved from Sydney: http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31789/Community-Concerns-in-relation-to-Coal-Seam-Gas_Taylor,-Sandy-and-Raphael_UWS.pdf.



http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/05/29/3513166.htm


http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31789/Community-Concerns-in-relation-to-Coal-Seam-Gas_Taylor,-Sandy-and-Raphael_UWS.pdf

http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31789/Community-Concerns-in-relation-to-Coal-Seam-Gas_Taylor,-Sandy-and-Raphael_UWS.pdf

268

Taylor, R. (2015). Beyond anonymity: temporality and the production of knowledge in a qualitative longitudinal study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(3), 281-292. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1017901

Teixeira, A., & Mota, L. (2012). A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links. Scientometrics, 93(3), 719-743. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0823-5

Tennenhouse, D. (2004). Intel's Open Collaborative Model of Industry-University Research. Research-Technology Management, 47(4), 19-26. doi:10.1080/08956308.2004.11671637

Tereskerz, P. M., Hamric, A. B., Guterbock, T. M., & Moreno, J. D. (2009). Prevalence of Industry Support and its Relationship to Research Integrity. Accountability in Research, 16(2), 78-105. doi:10.1080/08989620902854945

Thomas, N. (2015). Review of the socioeconomic impacts of coal seam gas in Queensland. Retrieved from Canberra http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/coal-seam-gas/Socioeconomic-impacts-of-coal-seam-gas-in-Queensland.pdf

Thune, T. (2007). University - industry collaboration: the network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(3), 158-168.

Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Institutionalization of university–industry interaction: an empirical study of the impact of formal structures on collaboration patterns. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), 99-107.

Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Dynamics of collaboration in university-industry partnerships: do initial conditions explain development patterns? Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 977-993. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9331-5

Thurtell, D. (Ed.) (2018). Resources and Energy Quarterly. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia,. Tight, M. (2011). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: public policy in global

perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 869-871. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.642172

Tijssen, R. J. W., & Wong, P. K. (2016). Unravelling complexities of university-industry research interactions: The analytical power of case studies. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 119-120. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw010

Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980-982. doi:10.1038/453980a

Tolich, M. (2004). Internal Confidentiality: When Confidentiality Assurances Fail Relational Informants. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 101-106. doi:10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015546.20441.4a

Tomlinson, K. (2011). New UQ research centre to focus on coal seam gas [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2011/11/new-uq-research-centre-focus-coal-seam-gas

Tomlinson, K. (2012). UQ’s Centre for Coal Seam Gas announces first round of research projects [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2012/08/uq%E2%80%99s-centre-coal-seam-gas-announces-first-round-of-research-projects

Towler, B., Firouzi, M., Underschultz, J., Rifkin, W., Garnett, A., Schultz, H., . . . Witt, K. (2016). An overview of the coal seam gas developments in Queensland. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 31, 249-271. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.02.040

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/coal-seam-gas/Socioeconomic-impacts-of-coal-seam-gas-in-Queensland.pdf



https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2011/11/new-uq-research-centre-focus-coal-seam-gas

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2011/11/new-uq-research-centre-focus-coal-seam-gas

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2012/08/uq%E2%80%99s-centre-coal-seam-gas-announces-first-round-of-research-projects

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2012/08/uq%E2%80%99s-centre-coal-seam-gas-announces-first-round-of-research-projects

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.02.040

269

Trigger, D., Keenan, J., de Rijke, K., & Rifkin, W. (2014). Aboriginal engagement and agreement-making with a rapidly developing resource industry: Coal seam gas development in Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 176-188.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2014). Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 369-383. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12024

Turpin, T. (1996). Knowledge-based cooperation: university - industry linkages in Australia. Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service.

Turpin, T. (1997). CRCs and Transdisciplinary Research: What are the Implications for Science? Prometheus, 15(2), 253-265. doi:10.1080/08109029708632074

Turpin, T., Alyward, D., Garrett-Jones, S., Speak, G., Grigg, L., & Johnston, R. (1999). University and Industry Research Partnerships in Australia: An evaluation of ARC/DETYA industry-linked research schemes (0642238677). Retrieved from Canberra:

Turpin, T., Garrett-Jone, S., & Rankin, N. (1996). Bricoleurs and boundary riders: managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R and D Management, 26(3), 267-282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1996.tb00961.x

Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Woolley, R. (2011). Cross-sector research collaboration in Australia: The Cooperative Research Centres Program at the crossroads. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), 87-97. doi:10.3152/030234211X12924093660354

Turton, D. J. (2015). Unconventional gas in Australia: towards a legal geography. Geographical Research, 53(1), 53-67.

Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50(2), 275-298. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6355-z

Uddameri, V., Morse, A., & Tindle, K. J. (2015). Hydraulic Fracturing Impacts and Technologies : A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Retrieved from http://UQL.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=2067939

Uhlmann, V., Rifkin, W., Everingham, J.-A., Head, B., & May, K. (2014). Prioritising indicators of cumulative socio-economic impacts to characterise rapid development of onshore gas resources. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 189-199. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.06.001

UIDP. (2012). Partnership Continuum : Understanding & Developing the Pathways for Beneficial University-Industry Engagement Retrieved from Washington http://train.fastercures.org/assets/Uploads/PartnershipContinuum.pdf

Ulrichsen, T. C., & O'Sullivan, E. (2015). Building Long-term Strategic University-Industry Partnerships. Cambridge: Centre for Science, Technology & Innovation Policy, Institute for Manufacturing,.

Underschultz, J. R., Vink, S., & Garnett, A. (2018). Coal seam gas associated water production in Queensland: Actual vs predicted. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering.

University of Queensland. (2018). Code of Conduct Policy. In. Brisbane: University of Queensland University of Queensland. (2019). Vice-Chancellor and President's Message regarding

Sustainability. Retrieved from https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/resources/vice-chancellor-and-presidents-message

University of Queensland. (n.d.). Centre for Coal Seam Gas. University of Queensland. (n.d. ). Enterprise Compliance Register. Retrieved from

https://governance-risk.uq.edu.au/functions-and-services/enterprise-compliance Upton, S., Vallance, P., & Goddard, J. (2014). From outcomes to process: evidence for a new

approach to research impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 23(4), 352-365. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu021

http://uql.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=2067939

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.06.001

http://train.fastercures.org/assets/Uploads/PartnershipContinuum.pdf

https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/resources/vice-chancellor-and-presidents-message

https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/resources/vice-chancellor-and-presidents-message

https://governance-risk.uq.edu.au/functions-and-services/enterprise-compliance

270

UQ-CCSG. (2013). Community attitudes to CSG. Retrieved from http://www.ccsg.uq.edu.au/Newsandevents/NewsEvents/tabid/130/itemid/6/Community-attitudes-to-CSG.aspx

UQ-CCSG. (n.d.-a). Onshore Gas Research Directory. Retrieved from http://research.ccsg.uq.edu.au/

UQ-CCSG. (n.d.-b). Social Performance. https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/social%20performance Vaaland, T. I., & Ishengoma, E. (2016). University-industry linkages in developing countries:

perceived effect on innovation. Education and Training, 58(9), 1014-1040. doi:doi:10.1108/ET-07-2015-0067

Valcárcel, M., & Lucena, R. (2014). A quantitative model to assess Social Responsibility in Environmental Science and Technology. Science of The Total Environment, 466–467, 40-46. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.099

Vallaeys, F. (2012 ). Defining social responsibility: a matter of philosophical urgency for universities Retrieved from http://www.guninetwork.org/resources/he-articles/defining-social-responsibility-a-matter-of-urgency-for-philosophy-and-universities#sthash.F182jDRQ.dpuf

Vallaeys, F. (2014). University Social Responsibility: A rational and mature definition. In C. Escrigas, J. Granados Sanchez, B. L. Hall, R. Tandon, G. Puig, & M. Forns (Eds.), Higher Education in the World 5: Knowledge, Engagement and Higher Education: Contributing to Social Change (Vol. 5, pp. 88-96). Basingstoke: GUNI (Global University Network for Innovation) / Palgrave Macmillian.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge for science and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Accessed on May, 17, 2009.

van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (2015). Design for Values: An Introduction. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains (pp. 1-7). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

van der Valk, T., Chappin, M. M. H., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 25-39. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.07.001

Vanderford, N. L., Weiss, L. T., & Weiss, H. L. (2013). A Survey of the Barriers Associated with Academic-based Cancer Research Commercialization. Plos One, 8(8), 7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072268

Various sigantories. (2018). An Open Letter to the Western Australian Government calling for a permanent ban on fracking In. Canberra The Australia Institute.

Vedovello, C. (2000). Science Parks and university-industry links: a comparative analysis between a British and a Portuguese experience. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 1(4), 358-374. doi:10.1504/ijstm.2000.001585

Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2017). How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86-102.

Visconti, L. M. (2010). Ethnographic Case Study (ECS): Abductive modeling of ethnography and improving the relevance in business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 25-39.

von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heinzt (Eds.), Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51-74). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

http://www.ccsg.uq.edu.au/Newsandevents/NewsEvents/tabid/130/itemid/6/Community-attitudes-to-CSG.aspx

http://www.ccsg.uq.edu.au/Newsandevents/NewsEvents/tabid/130/itemid/6/Community-attitudes-to-CSG.aspx

http://research.ccsg.uq.edu.au/

https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/social%20performance

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.099

http://www.guninetwork.org/resources/he-articles/defining-social-responsibility-a-matter-of-urgency-for-philosophy-and-universities#sthash.F182jDRQ.dpuf

http://www.guninetwork.org/resources/he-articles/defining-social-responsibility-a-matter-of-urgency-for-philosophy-and-universities#sthash.F182jDRQ.dpuf

271

Walker, J. (2011, 09/12/2011 ). UQ vice-chancellor Paul Greenfield hastens his exit. The Australian Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uq-vice-chancellor-paul-greenfield-hastens-his-exit/story-e6frgcjx-1226218459088

Walsh, M. E., Graber, G. C., & Wolfe, A. K. (1997). University‐industry relationships in genetic research: Potential opportunities and pitfalls. Accountability in Research, 5(4), 265-282. doi:10.1080/08989629708573916

Walter, S. G., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2016). Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes. Research Policy, 45(2), 533-545. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.008

Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Leonard, R. (2014a). CSIRO survey of community wellbeing and responding to change: Western Downs region in Queensland. Retrieved from Australia

Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Leonard, R. (2014b). Queensland survey reveals lukewarm view of coal seam gas. ECOS. doi:10.1071/EC14218

Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Leonard, R. (2016). The 2016 CSIRO Community wellbeing and responding to change survey: Western Downs region, Queensland ‐ Changes between 2014 and 2016 in the Context of Coal Seam Gas Development. Australia: CSIRO.

Walton, A. M., McCrea, R., Leonard, R., & Williams, R. (2013). Resilience in a Changing Community Landscape of Coal Seam Gas: Chinchilla in Southern Queensland. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 15(3), 1-23.

Walton, S., & Boon, B. (2014). Engaging with a Laclau & Mouffe informed discourse analysis: a proposed framework. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 351-370. doi:doi:10.1108/QROM-10-2012-1106

Wang, W.-L. (2012). A study on conflicts of interest in academia- industry co-operation: the defence for and modifications to the Bayh-Dole Act (part 1). European Intellectual Property Review, 34(12), 834-846.

Wang, Z., & Krupnick, A. (2013). A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom? Washington: Resources for the Future.

Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2012). The STM report. Retrieved from The Hague Warner, T., & Gluck, J. (2003). What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical

research? Psychopharmacology, 171(1), 36-46. doi:10.1007/s00213-003-1657-x Warner, T. D., & Roberts, L. W. (2004). Scientific integrity, fidelity and conflicts of interest in

research. Current opinion in psychiatry, 17(5), 381-385. Washburn, J. (2010). Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts

between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities. Retrieved from Washington: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_lf.pdf

Watermeyer, R. (2011). Challenges for University Engagement in the UK: Towards a Public Academe? Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 386-410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00492.x

Watermeyer, R. (2012). Measuring the Impact Values of Public Engagement in Medical Contexts. Science Communication, 34(6), 752-775. doi:10.1177/1075547011432804

Watermeyer, R., & Lewis, J. (2017). Institutionalizing public engagement through research in UK universities: perceptions, predictions and paradoxes concerning the state of the art. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1272566

Watson, D. (2007). Does Higher Education Need a Hippocratic Oath? Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), 362-374. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00359.x

Watson, D. (2012). What are universities for? London Review of Education, 10(2), 237-239. doi:10.1080/14748460.2012.691289

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uq-vice-chancellor-paul-greenfield-hastens-his-exit/story-e6frgcjx-1226218459088

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uq-vice-chancellor-paul-greenfield-hastens-his-exit/story-e6frgcjx-1226218459088

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_lf.pdf

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/big_oil_lf.pdf

272

Watson, D., Hollister, R., Stroud, S. E., & Babcock, E. (2011). The Engaged University : International Perspectives on Civic Engagement(1 ed.). Retrieved from http://UQL.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=672434

Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community Engagement and Boundary-Spanning Roles at Research Universities. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632-657. doi:10.2307/40929570

Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14-19.

Welch, C., Plakoyiannaki, E., Piekkari, R., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2013). Legitimizing Diverse Uses for Qualitative Research: A Rhetorical Analysis of Two Management Journals. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 245-264. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12001

Wessels, J., Visagie, R., & Van Heerden, M. (2015). Fostering research integrity through institutional policies: The case of a selected institution of higher education. Alternation, 22(1), 35-66.

Westnes, P., Hatakenaka, S., Gjelsvik, M., & Lester, R. K. (2009). The Role of Universities in Strengthening Local Capabilities for Innovation--A Comparative Case Study. Higher Education Policy, 22(4), 483-503.

Willacy, M. (2017). Coal seam gas oversight repeatedly cut by Newman government, cabinet documents reveal. ABC. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/coal-seam-gas-oversight-repeatedly-cut-by-newman-government/8313632

Williams, R., & Walton, A. (2013). The Social Licence to Operate and Coal Seam Gas Development. A literature review report to the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). March 2013. In: CSIRO, Canberra.

Williams, R., & Walton, A. M. (2014). Community Expectations and Coal Seam Gas Development: A report to the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). Retrieved from Canberra

Wise, M. N. (2006). Thoughts on the Politicization of Science through Commercialization. Social Research, 73(4), 1253-1272.

Witt, K., Kelemen, S., Schultz, H., & Vivoda, V. (2018). Industry and government responses to unconventional gas development in Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 5(4), 422-426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.09.012

Woiceshyn, J., & Eriksson, P. (2014). How innovation systems in Finland and Alberta work: Lessons for policy and practice. Innovation : Management, Policy and Practice, 16(1), 19-31.

Woodward, S. (2012, 24/04/2012). Campus Review: University of Queensland defends coal seam gas centre. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/campus-review-university-of-queensland-defends-coal-seam-gas-centre/419726.article

World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. In. Singapore: World Conference on Research Integrity,.

Wrona, T., & Gunnesch, M. (2016). The one who sees more is more right: how theory enhances the ‘repertoire to interpret’ in qualitative case study research. Journal of Business Economics, 86(7), 723-749. doi:10.1007/s11573-015-0799-8

Wrona, T., Ladwig, T., & Gunnesch, M. (2013). Socio-cognitive processes in strategy formation–A conceptual framework. European Management Journal, 31(6), 697-705.

http://uql.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=672434


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/coal-seam-gas-oversight-repeatedly-cut-by-newman-government/8313632

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/coal-seam-gas-oversight-repeatedly-cut-by-newman-government/8313632

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.09.012

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/campus-review-university-of-queensland-defends-coal-seam-gas-centre/419726.article

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/campus-review-university-of-queensland-defends-coal-seam-gas-centre/419726.article

273

Yassi, A., Dharamsi, S., Spiegel, J., Rojas, A., Dean, E., & Woollard, R. (2010). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Partnered Research: Revisiting the Sequestration Thesis and the Role of Universities in Promoting Social Justice. International Journal of Health Services, 40(3), 485-505. doi:10.2190/HS.40.3.f

Ybema, S., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Making the familiar strange: A case for disengaged organizational ethnography. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 101-119). London: Sage Publishing.

Yencken, J., & Gillin, M. (2006). A Longitudinal Comparative Study of University Research Commercialisation Performance: Australia, UK and USA. Innovation : Management, Policy and Practice, 8(3), 214-227. doi:10.5172/impp.2006.8.3.214

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2005). Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work. Human

Relations, 58(5), 555-576. Young, M., & Markham, F. (2015). Beyond disclosure: gambling research, political economy, and

incremental reform. International Gambling Studies, 15(1), 6-9. doi:10.1080/14459795.2014.995201

Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188-1204.

Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167-1174. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.011

Yusuf, S., & Nabeshima, K. (2007). How universities promote economic growth: World Bank Publications.

Zeid, A., & Lee, J. (2016). Unconventional Shale Gas Development: Application of USA Key Success Factors to other Countries in International Markets. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi.

Zheng, P. (2010). The "Second Academic Revolution": Interpretations of Academic Entrepreneurship. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(2), 35-50.

Zubielqui, G. C. d., Jones, J., Seet, P.-S., & Lindsay, N. (2015). Knowledge transfer between actors in the innovation system: a study of higher education institutions (HEIS) and SMES. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 30(3/4), 436-458. doi:10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0152

Zwart, H., Landeweerd, L., & Van Rooij, A. (2014). Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’to ‘RRI’. Life sciences, society and policy, 10(1), 1-19.

274

Appendix 1: Fields of Interest of Journals that have published UIE articles

275

Appendix 2: Stakeholders with interests in the CSG industry

Group of Stakeholders Examples

Upstream Explorers, Producers and Equity

QGC (part of BG group now Shell), Conoco Phillips, Petronas, Total SA, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Sinopec, Petronas, KOGAS, Tokyo Gas, Origin Energy, Santos, Arrow, Senex Energy, Comet Ridge, Bengal Energy, Bridgeport Energy, Kasai Electric, Mitsui E&P, Westside, Molopo, Nazara Energy, Pangaea Galilee, Stardrift, Mitsui E&P Australia, Tambo Oil & Gas, Blue Energy, Galilee Energy, Exoma Energy, Amour Energy, Drillsearch, Delhi Petroleum

Contractors / Suppliers Betchel, Technip, Mitsubishi, Schlumberger, Mitsubishi, Halliburton, Worley Parsons, McConnell Dowell, Fell Consulting, Minters, Nacap, McConnell Dowell, Jemena (Pipelines), GHD (Gutteridge Haskins & Davey), APTS, Fluor, Consolidated Contractors Company, SK Engineering Company , Delco Australia, IntelliGas Group (comprising iGas Energy Holdings Limited and associated Companies), Aerison, Bureau Veritas, WGPSN Queensland Pty Ltd, Alcatel Lucent, Welcon, Schneider Electric, Thales, Pinnacle Safety Training, SDV logistics, Valmec, Clarke Energy, DNV GL, GE Distributed Power, Vermeer, Macmahon Holdings Limited, Delco, Nacap, Icon Energy, ABB, Laing O’Rourke, Alstom, Murphy Pipe & Civil, Savanna, Cameron International, Schlumberger, Clough, Schneider, Conoco Phillips, Siebe Gorman, Enerflex, Siemens, Exterren, Sirius Well Manufacturing Services, Fluor, Sun Engineering, General Electric, Weatherfords, GL Noble Denton, Woody Group, Halliburton, Worley Parsons, Hatch, Thiess, Iplex Vinidex, CJV (Chiyoda Corporation, Chicago Bridge and Iron, Saipem), Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Monadelphous Group Limited, Resource and Land Management Services, Leighton Contractors, CIMIC, Prisim Communication Architects, Foster Wheeler

International Customers Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, Kogas, Petronas, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Sinopec, Tokyo Gas, Kasai Electric

Domestic Customers Braemer Power Stations, Stanwell Corporation, Incitec Pivot, QAL, Rio Tinto, Orica (Yarwun), QMag (Rockhampton), Boyne Island, Queensland Nitrates (Moura), Queensland Nickel, Incitec Pivot (Moranbah), Xstra, Incite Pivot, BHP Billiton (Cannington), Barrick (Osborne)

Consultants and Lawyers Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), Jacobs Engineering Group, McKinsey & Co, Fugro, AgEconPlus, Deloittes, PWC, Coffey Geotechnics, McKinsey, Allens Linklaters, Golder Associates, URS, Accenture, McLennan Magasanik Associates, KPMG

Industry / Professional / Union Representative Groups

Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA), Australian Pipeline Association, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Australian Geomechanics Association, Engineering Australia, AgForce, Chambers of Commerce (e.g. France), Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Industry Group (AIG), Safety Institute of Australia, National Generators Forum (NGF), Pump Industry Australia (PIA)

Financial / Commercial Institutions

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), ANZ, Westpac, CBA, NAB, MLC Investment Management Ltd, Colonial, Victoria’s Catholic Super fund, ANZ Infrastructure Services’ Energy Infrastructure Trust (EIT), Samsung Securities, Rothschild, The US Export Import Bank, China Export Import Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation

International NGOs Greenpeace, 350.org,

Domestic NGOs and religious organisations

National Toxics Network, Knitting Nannas, Lock the Gate, Market Forces, Basin Sustainability Alliance, Anglican Church, Landcare, Research Integrity Coalition

Media Gas Today, Energy Boardroom, Upstream, Argus Media, Asian Oil and Gas, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Oil and Gas Australia, Natural Gas World Magazine, Fuel Fix, PACE (Process and Control Engineering) Magazine

Government Agencies Queensland Government - Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) or Department of State Development (DSD) or Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP); Department of Environment and Resource Management; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Gas Regulator, Energy Skills Queensland, Co-ordinator General, Federal Government - ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource

276

Economics), Industry Capability Network (ICN), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Bureau of Meteorology and Geoscience Australia75, Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (ISEC)76; Council of Australian Governments Energy Council, Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, Standing Council on Energy and Resources (SCER), Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) , Australian Foreign Review Board, Expert Panel for Major Coal Seam Gas Projects (former), Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Geosciences Australia, Regional Councils i.e. Western Downs, Australian Energy Regulator

Cultural / Creative / Non-Scholarly publications

Stringray sisters (Film), Aim high in Creation (Film), Gaslands (Film), Frackman (Film), Bentley Project Documentary (Film), Rich Land Wasteland (Book), Concert in the Gaslands (Concert), What the Frack? (Book), Fracking the Future (Book), Down to Earth (Book) Road to Exploitation: Political capture by mining in Queensland (Book), Dirty Fracking Business: No More Coal Seam Gas Mining (Book), Gasleak Four Corners (TV), Bimblebox (Documentary)

Community Organisations State High Schools, State Primary Schools, Local Chambers of Commerce, Festival Organisers (e.g. Chinchilla Melon), Community Centres, Health Services

Training Organisations TAFE Queensland, Project Management Academy (PMA)

Research Organisations UQ-CCSG, ISEC, GISERA (CSIRO), Gasfields Commission Queensland, Industry Cluster Research Centres; Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP); Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) ; School of Petroleum - University of Adelaide, University of Newcastle; University of Southern Cross; University of New South Wales, University London – Adelaide (UCL) (now closed) ; World Market Intelligence; International Gas Union, International Energy Agency, Transparency International, International Risk Governance Council, Queensland University of Technology, James Cook University (JCU), CQUniversity Australia (CQU), Geological Survey of Queensland, Australian Institute of Marine Science

75 The Australian Government also funds bioregional assessments and related research (Department of Environment, 2015a). 76 Provides scientific advice to decision makers about the impact that CSG and large coal mining developments may have on Australia’s water resources.

277

Appendix 3: Leximancer Map – Key concepts and themes 1986-1990

278


279


280


281


282


283

Appendix 9: UIE Corpus - Leximancer Key Words in 5 Year Blocks

Rankings of Word Frequency Word 1991-95 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2016

1 research research research research university university

2 industry university university university research research

3 university technology technology technology firms technology

4 faculty industry industry transfer industry transfer

5 support collaboration transfer industry technology knowledge

6 academic companies firms firms knowledge industry

7 funding firms science science science innovation

8 science science development academic academic firms

9 scientists academic academic knowledge researchers science

10 students development knowledge companies development development

11 biotechnology transfer institutions public institutions academic

12 companies government support development innovation activities

13 work knowledge faculty institutions public researchers

14 time R&D public commercial patent social

15 R&D researchers government collaboration economic institutions

16 knowledge funding activities private national public

17 technology projects R&D funding projects collaboration

18 firms support projects support education system

19 teaching institutions economic government R&D education

20 government products education innovation government economic

21 relationships activities innovation project collaboration policy

22 transfer public process economic policy funding

23 grants work funding activities support relationships

24 development economic policy education work projects

25 projects process work R&D funding model

Governing for research integrity: some ... - UQ eSpace

Documents

Transcript of Governing for research integrity: some ... - UQ eSpace