A resource- and impact-based micro-level conceptualization of collaborative academic work
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0016 |
| Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Published date | 18 September 2017 |
| Pages | 624-639 |
| Author | Eugenia Perez Vico,Olof Hallonsten |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
A resource- and impact-based
micro-level conceptualization of
collaborative academic work
Eugenia Perez Vico
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden and
Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, and
Olof Hallonsten
Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to develop new conceptual tools for analyzing how contemporary
collaborative academic work is organized on micro-level, and its social and economic impact, in broad terms.
Thus it makes a contribution towards a better view on how contemporary academics organize their
professional activities in light of profound changes to the framework conditions of academic work, and a
better view on the productivity and potentially very wide societal impact of academia.
Design/methodology/approach –Based on previous research, the arguments are developed conceptually.
The paper builds both on previous empirical findings and strong traditions in organization theory
(resource dependence theory) and innovation studies.
Findings –The paper achieves a synthesized conceptual view on impact of academia, strongly related to
how individual academics organize their professional activities today, given the recent profound structural
changes to the academic system. The paper launches resource dependence as a key concept for
understanding contemporary academic work in a collaborative context, and sequences of impactas a key tool
for conceptualizing the very varied role of academia in society.
Research limitations/implications –While building strongly on previous research, the paper is
conceptual in nature and thus its value lies chiefly in assisting future studies.
Practical implications –The contribution can assist in policymaking by promoting the achievement of
more accurate and better balanced models and appraisal schemes.
Originality/value –The paper has theoretical originality and its synthesized argument about organizing
and impact is of high value for current scholarly debate on these topics.
Keywords Academia, Impact, Evaluation, Theory, Resource dependence, Sequences of impact
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
There is an overwhelming consensus in contemporary studiesof the politics and organization
of public science that the frameworkconditions for the professional life of academics[1] have
been profoundlytransformed in thepast few decades, as a result of multifaceted change within
academia as wellas in broader society. Key to thesechanges is a focus among policy makers
and decision makerson ensuring and increasing the social andeconomic impact of academic
activities in orderto meet societal challenges (Larédo and Mustar, 2004; Pinheiro et al., 2014).
Thereby, increased emphasis is given to societal collaboration, meaning the mutually
productive interaction with society outside of academia and its actors, organizations and
institutions. But while thesechanges profoundly transform and widen societal expectationson
science, and thusredefine the conduct and contentof academic work, evaluationschemes that
attempt to capture the impact of innovation and collaborative activities in academia too often
fall back on oversimplified and shallow quantitative measures of scientific productivity and
relevance. These, in turn, adhere to thepowerful attraction of quantitative indicatorsand the
narrow focus on direct economic impact of science (Jacobsson et al., 2013).
Similarly, scholarly focus has long been on (quantifiable) economic impact of
collaborative efforts in academia. In the most recent decades though, attention has
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 69 No. 5, 2017
pp. 624-639
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0016
Received 9 January 2017
Revised 26 April 2017
5June2017
Accepted 20 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-3806.htm
624
AJIM
69,5
increasingly turned to developing frameworks that capture impact of a broader variety.
Although these wider approaches have expanded the perspective on expected utilities of
academic activities, they still hold a limitation in that they mainly focus on direct impact
outside the academic realm and thus fail to account for the impact from societal
collaboration on the micro-level organizing[2] of academic activities. This limitation leads to
an underestimation of long term and indirect impact from societal collaboration. Changes in
the conduct and content of academic work sequentially condition the capability of academia
to make contributions to economy and society. This implies that impact is something far
more complex than quantitatively oriented performance assessment can capture.
In this theoretically oriented paper we address the limitation of current views on impact
by joining together two conceptual perspectives –one on how contemporary academics
organize their professional activities, and one on how societal collaboration influence
academic work. In doing so, we launch a theoretical framework and toolbox for future
studies of the organizing, productivity and impact of academia that can also assist in
policymaking, achieving more accurate and better balanced models and appraisal schemes.
The paper builds strongly on previous research (Perez Vico, 2014; Hallonsten, 2014) but
takes significant new steps, outlining a theory of the middle range[3], in other words a set of
concepts that can be put to use in studies to assist in analyses of empirical findings, and also
be refined and modified as part of such analytical efforts.
The next section describes the thematic background, and Sections 3 and 4 elaborate on
the arguments and weave them together. Section 5 points out directions for future research
and policy development.
2. Background
Macro-level conceptualizations of the multifaceted changes to the framework conditions
for academic work are many and rich –among the most famous are “mode 2”(Gibbons et al.,
1994), “academic capitalism”(Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), and the “triple helix”metaphor
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997). Internationalization, deregulation and the emergence of new
cross-disciplinary and inter-institutional configurations are common themes behind these
catchphrases, and many of the claims put forward have been confirmed by empirically and
theoretically substantiated studies (e.g. Whitley, 2000/1984, 2003; Whitley and Gläser, 2007;
Musselin, 2010, 2013; Hessels et al., 2009; Ziman, 2000; Frickel and Moore, 2006). These have also
contributed to a better understanding of the vast complexity that characterizes the social
organization of academia today, namely that individual academics currently face significantly
more unpredictable, multifarious and rapidly changing institutional[4] environments than some
decades ago. The responses of individual academicsto the changes have also been analyzed in a
number of studies (e.g. Laudel, 2006; Lam, 2010; Hermanowicz, 2009; Hallonsten, 2012, 2014;
Bozeman and Gaughan, 2011). Out of this emerges an image of the successful contemporary
academic as entrepreneurial and cosmopolitan, freely moving across disciplinary and
institutional boundaries and managing to creatively mobilize various resources in a continuous
maintenance and development of a dynamic activity in research, education and, increasingly
often, cooperation with other societal actors, organizations and institutions.
This proven complexity of contemporary academic systems has conventionally not been
matched by similar nuance and sophistication in the view of neither the impact of academic
activities nor of the influences of societal collaboration on academia –quite the reverse,
the rather one-sided belief that universities contribute insufficiently to innovation and
economic growth,based on simplified measures like patent andspinoff counts, has prevalence
at least in research and innovation policy. Concepts such as the “European Paradox”
(e.g. Andreasen, 1995) and the “Innovation Problem”(e.g. Guston, 2000) have won acclaim
through a rathernarrow-minded view on howacademic research can and shouldcontribute to
society and the economy, namely, through the generation of new firms, patentsand products
625
Collaborative
academic work
To continue reading
Request your trial