Understanding Chinese identity in international relations : a critique of Western approaches.

In international relations in the West, two main approaches to Chinese identity have emerged: the capability and the culture approaches. Though each takes a different view of China, they share common epistemological ground. positivism. This paper provides an overview of these two influential schools of thought and attempts to challenge their positivistic and ethnocentric assumptions about the identities of both China and the West. While they endeavour to make sense of China, particularly in the post-Cold War era, they fail to understand identity as a form of representation. From a critical perspective, both ’China’ and the ‘West’ are social constructs: each in part constitutes the other. The relationship between them is always relational and fluid. Posing Chinese identity in positivist terms is not only misleading analytically, but potentially dangerous in practice. It is important, therefore, that alternative critical approaches to the complexities of Chinese identity be further explored.

The dance of trust in high risk multi-partner collaborations : an exploration of the antecedents of trust in cross-sector R&D projects

This paper explores the dance of trust in cross-sector R&D collaborations, and does so by drawing on a multi-method study (involving qualitative research, case studies and a survey of project leaders) of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Program. R&D collaborations formed under this Program involve two main types of risk, venture or performance-related and relational, and these are problematic given power, information and risk impact asymmetries among the partners. Within the CRCs these risks are addressed through formalisation, employing the “right people”, and through relationship building. Trust (theorised following Sako as a multi-dimensional construct) is central to these processes. Where trust is formed among CRC participants, and is reinforced over repeated interactions, then relational and performance risks cease to become a major concern for CRC managers. In the CRCs, trust is formed and sustained as a multi-level process. Engagement and relationship commitment is achieved at an organizational level, and partner reputation, credible commitments and the institutional context are important factors here. At the project level, trust, in conjunction with a task focus, leads to a positive collaboration experience and this is associated with positive project outcomes. Within CRC projects, capabilities for communication and cross-sector management are important for the formation and maintenance of trust. The paper concludes by discussing the managerial implications of the study’s findings and by identifying areas for further research and conceptual development.

Building trust in cross-sector R&D collaborations : the role of credible commitments

This paper reports selected findings from a study of one form of cross-boundary relationship: cross-sector R&D collaboration under the Australian Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Programme. The study sought to explain project partners’ collaboration experience using a theoretical model which was empirically tested with a survey of CRC project leaders. It was hypothesised (H1) that the higher the level of relational trust (measured, following Sako, in terms of contractual, competence, and goodwill trust) amongst the partners in a collaborative project team, the more positive would be the partners’ experience of the project. The construct of credible commitments (the making of pledges, or the economic equivalent of the taking of hostages, which bind partners to a relationship) was posed in the model as an antecedent of relational trust. Accordingly it was hypothesised (H2) that the more that credible commitments are made by the project partners, the higher would be the level of relational trust between them. Data from the achieved sample (n = 156, 51% response rate) were analysed using PLS Graph. The results of the analysis provided support for hypothesis 1 but not for hypothesis 2. It was concluded that this latter finding could be due to the specific context of the study (cross-sector R&D collaborations under the CRC Programme differ markedly from inter-firm strategic alliances), or it could be due to the complex nature of credible commitments which was not adequately captured by our measure of this construct. Further research is required in this area to clarify the nature credible commitments, and the circumstances under which they contribute to a spiral of rising trust, in different cross-boundary contexts.

Credible commitments in R&D collaborations : a testing exercise with a troublesome construct

The findings reported here are part of a larger study on cross-sector R&D collaborations in the Australian Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Programme. The study has sought to explain project partners’ collaboration experience using a theoretical model which was empirically tested with a survey of CRC project leaders. A key hypothesis was that the higher the level of relational trust amongst the partners in a collaborative project, the more positive would be the partners’ experience of the project. The construct of “credible commitments”, which is widely used in the inter-organisational literature, was posed in the model as an antecedent of relational trust and positively related to it. No support was found for the hypothesis. The findings are discussed and future areas of research.

Collaborative R&D project partner experience in the Australian CRC Program : a theoretical framework

The paper focuses on commercially-oriented cross-sector R&D collaborative projects carried out within Australian Cooperative Research Centres. A theoretical model is proposed to explain the participants’ experience of such collaborative projects, and the relationship between partner experience and project outcomes. It is hypothesized that collaborative projects that have both a strong relationship focus, in terms relational trust, and a strong task focus, in terms of project management capability, are more likely to be positively experienced by the participants. Four antecedent variables, derived from the literature and preliminary research, are proposed: credible commitments, previous collaboration experience, cross-sector management capability, and communication intensity. The model is to be empirically tested through a survey of CRC project leaders.