Institutional perspectives in transition: research groups’ profiles and embeddedness in organisational and national context

Abstract

Research into differentiation and profiling of knowledge producing institutions through the lenses of institutional logics and field embeddedness have proliferated in recent years. By discussing this process in the context of research groups, as those basic units in which knowledge production epistemically and practically takes place, this article offers a contribution to the theoretical discussion on organisational differentiation. Based on a small-N comparative case study of research groups operating in different national and organisational contexts on a single, highly competitive and interdisciplinary applied sciences field, nanosciences, the article proposes research group profiles as heuristic devices to explore both the embeddedness and strategic agency of research groups.

Between context and comparability: Exploring new solutions for a familiar methodological challenge in qualitative comparative research

“…Our preconception was that we should find more differences among the research groups in different types of organisations in a given country, versus among the research groups in a given organisational context but in different countries. However, we discovered that neither the organisational context nor the country context clearly determined the profiles (Nokkala & Diogo, ). Thus, although the typology of profiles can in itself be an interesting tool, we could not advance beyond the typology to more explanatory findings using the conventional approach of predetermined comparative criteria.…”

“…The empirical case application is based on a comparison of 11 research groups in three small European countries. The aim of our study (reported in Nokkala & Diogo, ) was to examine how research groups operating in the policy‐relevant interdisciplinary research field, nanosciences, perceive the mission and beneficiaries of their work, and organise their work and collaborations. These groups work in varying organisational contexts and in three countries.…”

“…These groups work in varying organisational contexts and in three countries. The research questions that guided the study (although phrased differently in the article (Nokkala & Diogo, ) for reasons related to the theory chosen at a later stage) were phrased as follows: ‘How do research groups operating in the same research area but in different organizational and national contexts organize their work and collaborations?’ (descriptive question). Also, ‘Are the modes of organizing knowledge production and networking, as well as the self‐understanding of the research group different in different organizational contexts, or do they converge regardless of the organizational context?’ (analytical question).…”

“…Furthermore, the value of Sørensen's and Schmidt's suggestions will be demonstrated via utilising them for a qualitative small-N interview-based case study on research group orientation in competitive institutional environments. This article is not first and foremost about the empirical findings of this study (Nokkala & Diogo, 2019). Rather, the study will be used to discuss how comparability (and generalisations) can be achieved in qualitative comparative case studies in a different way.…”

“… At the same time, although the country/organisation contexts were selected following the aforementioned presuppositions, questions of feasibility and access also influenced the selection of the individual cases, namely the research groups, in these three relatively small countries (Nokkala & Diogo, ). …”