Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university

Abstract

This article reflects on current debate over transformations of scientific research and universities. Four well-known mutation theories (Mode-2 knowledge production, triple helix of university-industry-government relations, academic capitalism and enterprise university), and their recent critiques, are reviewed. It is suggested that a better understanding of the changes can be achieved by drawing analytic insight from research that speaks about scientific practices. Advantages that may be so attained are illustrated through a case study of a plant-biotechnology research group that pursued to straddle the fuzzy university-business boundary. On such grounds, three arguments that pertain to the mutation theories are put forward: (1) the need to appreciate the dynamics between theoretical, experimental and applied dimensions of research work;(2) the fact that external research funding intermingles with the complex social ecology of disciplines at the departmental level of universities; (3) the difficulties academics encounter as they try to fuse their university activities with private commercial development.

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

“…That paradigm has lead scholars in the field of academic entrepreneurship to debate whether there is an isomorphic trajectory of developing an entrepreneurial university regardless the context where the university locates. Tuunainen (2005) has criticized the hybrid practices that Etzkowitz (2003) had claimed as a global trend. While Etzkowitz et al's (2000) have posited that universities willing to become more entrepreneurial follow an isomorphic trajectory that takes the form of hybrid practices of knowledge creation, Tuunainen (2005) has claimed that the phenomenon is more complex and universities actually adapt their portfolio to the local agendas in terms of teaching, researching and transfer of knowledge (Audretsch ,2014.…”

“…Tuunainen (2005) has criticized the hybrid practices that Etzkowitz (2003) had claimed as a global trend. While Etzkowitz et al's (2000) have posited that universities willing to become more entrepreneurial follow an isomorphic trajectory that takes the form of hybrid practices of knowledge creation, Tuunainen (2005) has claimed that the phenomenon is more complex and universities actually adapt their portfolio to the local agendas in terms of teaching, researching and transfer of knowledge (Audretsch ,2014. ) This means that, rather a unique global trajectory, universities develop specific combinations of the three core activities depending upon local contexts.…”

“…Tuunainen (2005) categorized the models of transformation in science and universities in two wide streams: those claiming radical transformation and those claiming a moderate transition.…”

“…The non-isomorphism of the transitional trajectories, noted by Tuunainen (2005) as a critique to the Etzkowitzanian path and also partially questioned by , may be mainly due to an incorrect extension of individual-level concepts towards the full organization level. This is the misunderstanding of how to manage the university's portfolio in terms of education, research, and transfer, bottom up from the key actors of any change, the human capital.…”

Plant biotechnology for deeper understanding, wider use and further development of agricultural and horticultural crops

“…Studies on potato biotechnology at DAB were continued in a joint project with the plant breeding unit of the MTT Agrifood Research Finland (MTT) and Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd. A few years later, UniCrop Ltd was founded by some of the researchers at AF-UH and the commercially oriented lines of plant biotechnology research moved to the company. The chain of events leading to establishment of plant biotechnology at AF-UH, including the challenges and difficulties in fitting academic studies and commercially oriented research into the same laboratory at a university department, have been reviewed in detail by Tuunainen (2005aTuunainen ( , 2005b.…”