This study offers an in-depth review of the body of research articles on the topic of boundary spanning and the dynamic nature of different actors to provide a more comprehensive knowledge on different boundary spanning activities and their effects on performance, flexibility, and resilience in educational institutions.
Design/methodology/approach:
To address the limited research on boundary-spanning functions in education, this study employed a two-round systematic literature review (SLR). The first round, which included an analysis of 338 research studies, sought to identify boundary-spanning functions and their activities. Using data from 39 studies, the second round sought to examine the boundary-spanning function and the critical role that information transfer plays in enabling boundary spanning in education.
Findings:
This review of literature led researchers to draw the main variables/strategies that facilitate boundary spanning in education (leadership and instructional strategies; collaboration and networking; training and development; teamwork; and revised pedagogical approaches). Also, the review highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer in facilitating boundary-spanning functions.
Originality/value:
Researchers, practitioners, and decision makers looking to improve boundary-spanning activities by utilizing networks and knowledge transfer might use this systematic review as a source. It also provides various strategies of how boundary spanners and leaders can support and facilitate the function of boundary spanning in educational institutions.
AbreuM.GrinevichV. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.
2.
AdhikariD. R.ShresthaP. (2023). Knowledge management initiatives for achieving sustainable development goal 4.7: Higher education institutions’ stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(4), 1109–1139.
3.
AgranoffR. (2008). Collaboration for knowledge: Learning from public management networks. In: BinghamL. B.O’LearyR. (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management. Routledge.
4.
AhujaS. (2023). Professional identity threats in interprofessional collaborations: A case of architects in professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies, 60(2), 428–453.
5.
AlaviH.HąbekP. (2016). Addressing research design problems in mixed methods research. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 21(1), 62–66.
6.
AldrichH.HerkerD. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
7.
AmisJ. M. (2018). Understanding organization change and innovation: A conversation with Mike Tushman. Journal of Change Management, 18(1), 23–34.
8.
AnconaD. G.CaldwellD. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665.
9.
AustinA. E.McDanielsM. (2006). Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to work within Boyer’s four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2006(129), 51–65.
10.
BazanC. (2019). “From lab bench to store shelves”: A translational research and development framework for linking university science and engineering research to commercial outcomes. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 53, 1–18.
11.
BednarekA. T.WybornC.CvitanovicC.MeyerR.ColvinR. M.AddisonP. F.CloseS. L.CurranK.FarooqueM.GoldmanE.HartD.MannixH.McGreavyB.ParrisA.PosnerS.RobinsonC.RyanM.LeithP. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science-policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13, 1175–1183.
12.
BeechlerS.SøndergaardM.MillerE. L.BirdA. (2017). Boundary spanning. In The Blackwell handbook of global management (pp. 121–133). Wiley Blackwell.
13.
BejaranoJ. B. P.SossaJ. W. Z.Ocampo-LópezC.Ramírez-CarmonaM. (2023). Open innovation: A technology transfer alternative from universities. A systematic literature review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(4), 100090
14.
BinghamL. B.O’LearyR.CarlsonC. (2008). Frameshifting: Lateral thinking for collaborative public management. In: BinghamL. B.O’LearyR. (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management. Routledge.
15.
BirkinshawJ.HoodN. (2000). Characteristics of foreign subsidiaries in industry clusters. Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 141–154.
16.
BrionS.ChauvetV.CholletB.MotheC. (2012). Project leaders as boundary spanners: Relational antecedents and performance outcomes. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 708–722.
17.
BurnsR. W.BadialiB. J. (2020). The transformative nature of boundary-spanning roles in developing teacher leaders: The case of a hybrid teacher educator in a professional development school context. The New Educator, 16(3), 187–206.
18.
CarayannisE. G.GrigoroudisE.CampbellD. F.MeissnerD.StamatiD. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quadruple helix innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.
19.
ChenZ.LittleV. J.ThuanN. H. (2024). The evolving role of technology transfer offices in the entrepreneurial university: Go-betweens or playmakers?The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–20.
20.
ChesbroughH.LettlC.RitterT. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938.
21.
ChoiN. G.LongleyM.SmithK.GoldsteinL.CorumA.PoonawalaR.FingermanK. (2024). Community stakeholder feedback for development of a volunteer-coached behavioral activation for youth in a low-resource community. Children and Youth Services Review, 166, 107940.
22.
ConnellyD. R.ZhangJ.FaermanS. (2008). The paradoxical nature of collaboration. In: BinghamL. B.O’LearyR. (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management. Routledge.
23.
CvitanovicC.CunninghamR.DowdA. M.HowdenS. M.Van PuttenE. I. (2017). Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: An Australian case study. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(3), 256–269.
24.
DavisL. K. (2016). Boundary spanning, networking, and sensemaking/sensegiving: How career services directors enact mid-level leadership. University of Massachusetts, Boston.
25.
DiasA. A.PortoG. S. (2018). Technology transfer management in the context of a developing country: Evidence from Brazilian universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(4), 525–536.
26.
DiEnnoC. M.AtzlV. M.AntoniouA. S.DePrinceA. P. (2024). Collective impact as a novel approach to seeding collaboration for boundary spanning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 28(3), 44–58.
27.
DresdenJ.ThompsonK. F. (2021). Looking closely at clinical practice: A clear-eyed vision for the future of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(1), 8–21.
28.
EllegaardO.WallinJ. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?Scientometrics, 105, 1809–1831.
29.
EmeryN.MaherJ. M.Ebert-MayD. (2021). Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices. PLoS One, 16(4), e0250760.
30.
EtzkowitzH. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.
31.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (June16, 1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry relations. Preprint version of: EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter. [archival reprint].
32.
FiniR.JourdanJ.PerkmannM. (2018). Social valuation across multiple audiences: The interplay of ability and identity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2230–2264.
33.
FriedmanJ.SilbermanJ. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter?The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.
34.
FuJ. S.BarbourJ. B. (2024). Contextualizing communication for digital innovation and the future of work. Journal of Communication, 74(1), 36–47.
35.
GarciaJ.VaughnA.AbreuC. A.BlodgettJ.CarrilloE.ContrerasR.EndinjokF.GrutzmacherS.GunterK.Marie HarveyS.KothariB.MojicaC. M.RothwellD.MacTavishK. (2024). Developing a strategic “container” to support boundary spanning and belonging amongst diverse collaborators at a land grant university. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 28(3), 97–112.
36.
GassmannO.GasoB. (2004). Insourcing creativity with listening posts in decentralized firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 3–14.
37.
GausO.RaithM. G. (2016). Commercial transfer: A business model innovation for the entrepreneurial university. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 183–201.
38.
GhoshalS.BartlettC. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–626.
39.
GibbonsD. E.FreemanM. (2022). Decision-making challenges: Group dynamics and boundary spanning in the CyberStrike game. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 20(3), 145–157.
GibbonsM. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 159–163.
42.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
43.
GlazerJ. L.ShirrellM.DuffM.FreedD. (2023). Beyond boundary spanning: Theory and learning in research-practice partnerships. American Journal of Education, 129(2), 265–295.
44.
GoodM.KnockaertM.SoppeB.WrightM. (2019). The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation, 82, 35–50.
45.
GouldF.SteeleD.WoodrumW. (2014). Cooperative extension: A century of innovation. The Journal of Extension, 52(1): 1–5.
46.
GrissomJ. A.CondonL. (2021). Leading schools and districts in times of crisis. Educational Researcher, 50(5), 315–324.
47.
GroomsA. A.ChildsJ. (2021). “We need to do better by kids”: Changing routines in US schools in response to COVID-19 school closures. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 26(2), 135–156.
48.
GuerreroM.CunninghamJ. A.UrbanoD. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.
49.
GurugubelliP. K.JaikumarS.ParthibanR. (2024). Bridging academia and practice with digital boundary objects. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2409258
50.
GustonD. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
51.
Hatch-TocaimazaD. K.LongJ.Oliver AndrewR.TobiasC. (2025). No justice without sustainability: Taking the climate and environment literally in diversity, equity, and inclusion work. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(2), 204–211.
52.
HaverlyC.SeeberE. R.DavisE. A.SpillaneJ. P.LyleA. M. (2024). Teachers learning on-the-job through participation in an organizational routine: A comparative case study of three curriculum materials adoption processes for elementary science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 36(4), 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2412434
53.
HelfatC. E.MaritanC. A. (2024). Resource allocation capability and routines in multibusiness firms. Organization Science, 35(3), 1110–1130.
54.
HenryE. N.Galaviz-YapG. R.Sherman-DuncanJ. R.YoungA. W.McCrackenD. M.MunnB. M.CaplanS. (2024). Spanning boundaries and transforming roles: Broadening extension’s reach with OSU open campus and Juntos. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 28(3), 73–81.
55.
HolgerssonM.AaboenL. (2019). A literature review of intellectual property management in technology transfer offices: From appropriation to utilization. Technology in Society, 59, 101132.
56.
HouK.WuZ. X.ChenX. Y.WangJ. Q.ZhangD.XiaoC.ZhuD.KoyaJ. B.WeiL.LiJ.ChenZ. S. (2022). Microbiota in health and diseases. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 7(1), 1–28.
57.
HouJ.ZhengB.WangD.ZhangY.ChenC. (2023). How boundary-spanning paper sparkles citation: From citation count to citation network. Journal of Informetrics, 17(3), 101434.
58.
HsiaoR. L.TsaiD. H.LeeC. F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: The adaptive nature of cross-boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491.
59.
HsuS. H.WangY. C.TzengS. F. (2007). The source of innovation: Boundary spanner. Total Quality Management, 18(10), 1133–1145.
60.
HutchingsP.HuberM. T.CicconeA. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. Jossey-Bass.
61.
JenkinsD.FinkJ. (2016). Tracking transfer: New measures of institutional and state effectiveness in helping community college students attain bachelor’s degrees. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
62.
JensenR. J.SzulanskiG. (2007). Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. Management Science, 53(11), 1716–1730.
63.
KassiciehS. K.KirchhoffB. A.WalshS. T.McWhorterP. J. (2002). The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Technovation, 22(11), 667–674.
64.
KolberS.HeggartK. (2022). Education-focused practices on Twitter: Building democratic fora. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 7(1), 26–44.
65.
KrylovaK. O.VeraD.CrossanM. (2016). Knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive organizations: The crucial role of improvisation in transferring and protecting knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 1045–1064.
66.
LaursenS.AndrewsT.StainsM.FinelliC. J.BorregoM.McConnellD.JohnsonE.FooteK.RuediB.MalcomS. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
67.
LauvåsT.SteinmoM. (2024). Integrating knowledge for environmental innovations in research centers: The key role of industry-based boundary spanners. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 18(3), 293–321.
68.
LeiferR.DelbecqA. (1978). Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.
69.
LeonardS. Y.MoultonM. J.AndrewsP. G. (2021). Redefining “boundary-spanning teacher educator” for critical clinical practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(1), 22–31.
70.
LinkA. N.SiegelD. S.BozemanB. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
71.
Macho-StadlerI.Pérez-CastrilloD.VeugelersR. (2007). Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 483–510.
72.
MartinelliA.MeyerM.Von TunzelmannN. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.
73.
MaślikowskaM.GibbertM. (2023). Dynamic boundaries in virtual student teams: Is participant alignment the new team cohesion?Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(4), 621–640.
74.
MasonR. M. (2003). Culture-free or culture-bound? A boundary-spanning perspective on learning in knowledge management systems. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 11(4), 20–36.
75.
MayN.CoxB.CappellaE.NadeemE.ChackoA. & Path Program Team. (2024). Collaborative design of an inclusive education model for students with emotional disabilities: A research-practice-policy partnership. School Mental Health, 16(3), 760–775.
76.
McDonaldA. T.PulaskiD.HeidlR. (2023). Magnetic Tower: Within and between-team collaboration experiential exercise. Journal of Education for Business, 98(6), 338–346.
77.
MezaE. A.BlumeG. (2020). Exploring how institutional partners vary in outcomes for transfer students of color. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2020(192), 37–44.
78.
MillerK.McAdamR.McAdamM. (2018). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7–24.
79.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
80.
MullC. D.JordanJ. W. (2024). Assessing the boundary-spanning roles of cooperative extension professionals in higher education community partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 28(3), 23–41.
81.
MurphyW. H.GölgeciI.JohnstonD. A. (2020). Power-based behaviors between supply chain partners of diverse national and organizational cultures: The crucial role of boundary spanners’ cultural intelligence. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(2), 204–218.
82.
NohriaN.GulatiR. (1997). What is the optimal amount of organizational slack? A study of the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms. European Management Journal, 15(6), 603–611.
83.
ObstfeldD. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 1571–1592.
84.
O’kaneC.MangematinV.GeogheganW.FitzgeraldC. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.
85.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.
86.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.
87.
ÖzdemirM.AypayA.KayaE. (2024). In search of organizational actorhood: Institutional positioning statements of Turkish public universities. Higher Education Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00379-8
88.
OzturkG. B. (2021). Digital twin research in the AECO-FM industry. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, 102730.
89.
ParkerA. K.ZenkovK.GlaserH. (2021). Preparing school-based teacher educators: Mentor teachers’ perceptions of mentoring and mentor training. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(1), 65–75.
90.
PayneA.OrchardR.BrewerJ.MoreauC. (2024). Fluid practices of university-community engagement boundary spanners at a land grant university. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 28(3), 113–126.
91.
PerkmannM.TartariV.McKelveyM.AutioE.BroströmA.D’esteP.FiniR.GeunaA.GrimaldiR.HughesA.KrabelS.KitsonM.LlerenaP.LissoniF.SalterA.SobreroM. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
92.
PetersS. J. (2002). Rousing the people on the land: The roots of the educational organizing tradition in Extension work. The Journal of Extension, 40(3), 4–11.
93.
PietriD.McAfeeS.MaceA.KnightE.RogersL.ChorneskyE. (2011). Using science to inform controversial issues: A case study from the California Ocean Science Trust. Coastal Management, 39(3), 296–316.
94.
PohlmannJ. R.Duarte RibeiroJ. L.MarconA. (2024). Inbound and outbound strategies to overcome technology transfer barriers from university to industry: A compendium for technology transfer offices. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(6), 1166–1178.
95.
PorterS. C.PhillipsM.StallingsS.WorsleyT. E. (2025). Exploring how museums can support science teacher leaders as boundary spanners. Science Education, 109(1), 106–127.
96.
PurcellJ. W.SmithD. N. (2023). Disciplinary expertise and faculty credentialing in leadership studies: Advancing a necessary conversation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(2), 5–21.
97.
QianH.WalkerA.ZhengY. (2023). Boundary-spanning practices of system leaders in China: Enabling conditions and inherent tensions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(2), 238–257.
98.
RådbergK. K.LöfstenH. (2023). Developing a knowledge ecosystem for large-scale research infrastructure. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(1), 441–467.
99.
RadkoN.BelitskiM.KalyuzhnovaY. (2023). Conceptualizing the entrepreneurial university: The stakeholder approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 955–1044.
100.
RobinsonJ. M.O’LoughlinV. D.KearnsK.PlummerL. (2022). Teaching as if learning matters: Pedagogies of becoming by next-generation faculty. Indiana University Press.
101.
RoseD. C. (2014). Boundary work. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1038–1038.
102.
SchoppeL. A.ChyllaR. W. (2016). Collaborating with universities and government labs. Research in Technology Management, 59(1), 67–71.
103.
SiegelJ. D.RhinehartE.JacksonM.ChiarelloL., & Health Care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007). 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. American Journal of Infection Control, 35(10), S65.
104.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD.LinkA. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
105.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A.IrelandR. D.GilbertB. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.
106.
SoaresT. J.TorkomianA. L. (2021). TTO’s staff and technology transfer: Examining the effect of employees’ individual capabilities. Technovation, 102, 102213.
107.
StiglitzJ. E. (2015). The origins of inequality and policies to contain it. National Tax Journal, 68(2), 425–448.
108.
StriepeM.CunninghamC. (2022). Understanding educational leadership during times of crises: A scoping review. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(2), 133–147.
109.
SwartzE.WelshD. H.KruegerN.TelloS. (2024). Engagement through boundary spanning: Insights from US entrepreneurship educators. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 51(3), 281–300.
110.
TeeceD. J. (2011). Achieving integration of the business school curriculum using the dynamic capabilities framework. Journal of Management Development, 30(5), 499–518.
111.
ThursbyJ. G.KempS. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.
112.
TimmermansA. (2020). Bringing science to practice: Designing an integrated academic education program for public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), e2182.
113.
TushmanM. L.KatzR. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071–1085.
114.
TushmanM. L.ScanlanT. J. (1981). Boundary-spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.
115.
UstundagA.UğurluS.Serdar KilincM. (2011). Evaluating the performance of technology transfer offices. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(4), 322–337.
116.
van BuerenB. J.ArgusK.Iyer-RanigaU.LeendersM. A. (2023). The circular economy operating and stakeholder model “eco-5HM” to avoid circular fallacies that prevent sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 391, 136096.
117.
Van EckN.WaltmanL. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
118.
van KnippenbergD.LiJ.TuY. (2024). Team informational resources, information elaboration, and team innovation: Diversity mindset moderating functional diversity and boundary-spanning scouting effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(4), 1835–1853.
119.
VirgoJ.PillonJ.NavarroJ.ReynaudE.OsiurakF. (2017). Are you sure you’re faster when using a cognitive tool?The American Journal of Psychology, 130(4), 493–503.
120.
WeertsD. J.SandmannL. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657.
121.
WestJ.BogersM. (2017). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation, 19(1), 43–50.
122.
WhitchurchC. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third-space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377–396.
123.
XiaoH.HuY.LangZ.FangB.GuoW.ZhangQ. I.PanX.LuX. (2017). How much do we know about the breeding biology of bird species. . . in the world?Journal of Avian Biology, 48(4), 513–518.
124.
YoonJ.PantG.PantS. (2024). Discovery of technological innovation systems: Implications for predicting future innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 41(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.2301172
125.
YossoT. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
126.
ZhangJ.WuX.GuoJ. E.JiangR. (2022). The interactive effects of individual boundary spanning and boundary buffering when using enterprise social media. International Journal of Information Management, 64, 102490.
127.
ZhangC.WuF.HenkeJ. W.Jr (2015). Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 84–94.
128.
ZhaoZ. J.AnandJ. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The “collective bridge” as an efficient inter unit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513–1530.
129.
ZhuangT. (2023). Scaling greater heights in higher eduction through boundary-spanning-based university-industry collaboration: The ‘Four New Project” in China. Beijing International Review of Education, 5(4), 383–404.
