IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i4p583-597..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty
[De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Research Going against the Mainstream]

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Jonsson
  • Maria Grafström
  • Mikael Klintman

Abstract

Policymakers increasingly emphasize knowledge collaboration between academia and society as important means to generate innovations and solve complex issues. However, while recent literature on such collaboration suggests that knowledge needs to be integrated and generated across disciplines and sectors, there are surprisingly few studies that define what is meant by ‘knowledge’ or focus on the process of generating knowledge. Subsequently, the aim of this paper is to unbox ‘knowledge’ in knowledge collaboration by focusing specifically on how knowledge is understood by heterogenous actors during the process of generating knowledge. We build on insights from an in-depth case study and contribute to the literature on knowledge collaboration by bringing in theory on boundary work that specifically addresses the knowledge generation process. We argue that to better meet the expectations of collaboration, there is a need for more discussions and focus on the participating stakeholders’ heterogenous epistemological as well as ontological understanding.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:4:p:583-597.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ankrah, Samuel & AL-Tabbaa, Omar, 2015. "Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 387-408.
    2. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    3. Sjoerd Hardeman & Koen Frenken & Önder Nomaler & Anne L. J. Ter Wal, 2015. "Characterizing and comparing innovation systems by different ‘modes’ of knowledge production: A proximity approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 530-548.
    4. Alice Lam, 2011. "University-industry collaboration: careers and knowledge governance in hybrid organisational space," International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 135-145.
    5. Esther Wit-de Vries & Wilfred A. Dolfsma & Henny J. Windt & M. P. Gerkema, 2019. "Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1236-1255, August.
    6. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    7. Rossi, Federica & Rosli, Ainurul & Yip, Nick, 2017. "Academic engagement as knowledge co-production and implications for impact: Evidence from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1996. "Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(5), pages 279-286, October.
    9. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    10. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    11. Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    12. Lihua Yang, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 53-73.
    13. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.
    14. Dubois, Anna & Gadde, Lars-Erik, 2014. "“Systematic combining”—A decade later," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(6), pages 1277-1284.
    15. Stephen R. Barley & Gideon Kunda, 2001. "Bringing Work Back In," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 76-95, February.
    16. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Fay & Catherine Slade, 2013. "Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 1-67, February.
    17. Mats Alvesson, 2011. "De‐Essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Sceptical Research Going against the Mainstream," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(7), pages 1640-1661, November.
    18. Haridimos Tsoukas, 2009. "A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 941-957, December.
    19. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    2. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    3. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    4. Kamilla Kohn Rådberg & Hans Löfsten, 2023. "Developing a knowledge ecosystem for large-scale research infrastructure," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 441-467, February.
    5. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    6. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    7. Siw M. Fosstenløkken, 2019. "The Role Of Plans In The Formation Of A New Innovation Practice: An Innovation Object Perspective," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Frank Rijnsoever & Leon Welle & Sjoerd Bakker, 2014. "Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 635-661, August.
    9. Roncancio-Marin, Jason & Dentchev, Nikolay & Guerrero, Maribel & Díaz-González, Abel & Crispeels, Thomas, 2022. "University-Industry joint undertakings with high societal impact: A micro-processes approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Michael J.D. Roberts & Paul W. Beamish, 2017. "The Scaffolding Activities of International Returnee Executives: A Learning Based Perspective of Global Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 511-539, June.
    11. Sjoerd Hardeman, 2013. "Organization level research in scientometrics: a plea for an explicit pragmatic approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1175-1194, March.
    12. Atiase, Victor Yawo & Kolade, Oluwaseun & Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele, 2020. "The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa: Implications for knowledge production and value creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Carolina Cañibano & Richard Woolley & Eric J. Iversen & Sybille Hinze & Stefan Hornbostel & Jakob Tesch, 2019. "A conceptual framework for studying science research careers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1964-1992, December.
    14. Forrest Briscoe, 2007. "From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 297-314, April.
    15. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    16. Dean A. Shepherd & Marc Gruber, 2021. "The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(5), pages 967-998, September.
    17. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    18. Järvi, Kati & Almpanopoulou, Argyro & Ritala, Paavo, 2018. "Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1523-1537.
    19. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    20. Lantto, Anna-Maija, 2022. "Obtaining entity-specific information and dealing with uncertainty: Financial accountants' response to their changing work of financial reporting and the role of boundary objects," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:4:p:583-597.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.