The fourth section presents our analyses of this search for compromise in which Infotech1 participants were enmeshed during the duration of the partnership's existence, and the implications of our analysis for the management of IURPs, including policy recommendations.
Along with other types of inter-organization cooperation, IURPs have been mostly studied by economists at a quite general level, in terms of transaction costs and uncertainty reduction (Arora and Gambardella, 1997; Buchbinder and Newson, 1985; Callon and Foray, 1997; Dasgupta and David, 1994; Joly and Mangematin, 1996).
Regarding IURPs more specifically, the biotechnology sector is frequently cited as a success story in university-industry relations and alliances (Dalpe, 2003).
The scientists who agreed to be part of Infotech1 thus differed to a large extent from other scientists who refuse to participate in IURPs, and for whom scientific research should have nothing to do with commercial interests.
The trustworthiness of our interpretations was further ensured, on one side, by Infotech1 participants' reviewing and checking for accuracy all quotations and their relationships to the polities and, on the other side, by the same reviewing and checking process for consistency by scholars who were familiar with the issues surrounding IURPs but not with our theoretical framework.
In contrast to the general optimism that surrounds the notions of project and network, participants stress several limits or qualifications that seem to nourish scepticism towards the capacity of this polity to support the development of IURPs to the satisfaction of all parties.
As regards to the university, there is also a need to publicly acknowledge the value of IURPs, not only at the general level of university contributions to national innovation and competitiveness, but also at the more specific level of the alliance with a big firm, even if this value is not acknowledged by all academics.
Both university and industry actors still need to have the resources to share and confront their views on how research and "valuable knowledge" can be defined and worked out in the context of IURPs.
Although we suspect that the first compromise is probably at stake in virtually all IURPs, such might not be the case with the second one.
In the meantime, while there certainly is a need to build a general framework to support IURPs' practices, there might also be an equal need to refrain from imposing too many a priori rules or procedures upon IURPs regarding evaluation, intellectual property, research project management, etc.