Managing university research in the triple helix

Abstract

Dette working paper er udgivet som del af REMAP-projektet: REsearch MAnagement Processes under rapid changeYderligere oplysninger om REMAP kan findes på projektets web-site: www.remap.dk. Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy AbstractThis paper argues the need for a new approach to the management of academic researchers and their research work. It is held that the requirement for a new management paradigm at the universities is accentuated by all the significant challenges in the knowledge production system (described as mode 2, triple helix, post-academic science etc.). The paper not only argues the need for a new management approach but also attempts to sketch an outline of an approach to microlevel management of academic researchers. This approach seeks to strike a balance between autonomy for the academics and organisational steering.

Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations

“…The changing institutional environment is embedded in broader social, economic, political and institutional developments. Within the alleged knowledge economy, society has started questioning more openly whether publicly funded research is sensitive or contributes to solving societal problems, wealth creation and other social functions (Ernø-Kjølhede et al, 2001). In the process, more pressure is put on the external validation of publicly funded knowledge production in universities and the autonomy of academics is bound to suffer from erosion.…”

“…Universities are increasingly said to be run like businesses (Barry et al, 2001). Businessrelated concepts such as 'efficiency', 'performance measurement' and 'auditing' have invaded the academic lexicon (Ernø-Kjølhede et al, 2001;Ewan and Calvert, 2000). Their advancement fits the ideology of managerialism, which rests on the assumption that better (or more?)…”

The ‘discipline’ of post-academic science: reconstructing the paradigmatic foundations of a virtual research institute

“…This distinction retains the Mertonian norms as a potential regulative system, while accepting that science as practice is an actionoriented, contextualised human activity that may reconstruct its own inter-organisationally derived norms in interaction with a diversity of actors (Etzkowitz, 1998). Ernø-Kjølhede et al (2001) has explored the distinction between science as a socially and epistemically regulative totality, and the organisationally embedded, relevance-driven science. Against the image of traditional disciplinary development of research where the academic is self-organised and self-dominated, they put the context dependence of norms, the continuous balancing of individual, societal and organisational objectives, and the dual governance of practitioners and peers over the formation of academic discourse.…”

Distributing leadership across people and objects in a collaborative research project

“…The phenomenon of collaboration between academia, governmental organizations and practice has been frequently studied at a macro level (Beaudoin and Mailhot, 2009), but the concrete problems of coordination between various types of organizations in the context of these projects have not received a great deal of research attention (Adler et al, 2009). There has been little empirical research on the management activities of boundary-spanning research programs which, nevertheless, require ''active leadership responsibility'' (Adler et al, 2009(Adler et al, : 1137; see also Amabile et al, 2001;Ernø-Kjølhede et al, 2001;Mohrman et al, 2001).…”