IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i6p962-971..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academics’ prosocial motivation for engagement with society: The case of German academics in health science
[Why Do Academics Engage Locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger]

Author

Listed:
  • E Sormani
  • K Uude

Abstract

Although research has shown the importance of prosocial motivation for academic engagement in public good (universities’ so-called ‘third mission’), research is yet to examine such motivation in depth. This study develops an empirical understanding of the dimensions of prosocial motivation in academics’ engagement, focusing particularly on societal engagement. Self-determination theory and conceptual forms of prosocial motivation (principlism, egoism, collectivism, and altruism) assist in interpreting the dimensions. We conducted twenty-five qualitative interviews with academics in the field of health science in Germany. Three dimensions of prosocial motivation emerged from the data: (1) personal, (2) academic role, and (3) academic field. The results demonstrate how the various conceptual forms of prosocial motivation are reflected in these dimensions. Additionally, we advance our understanding of how intrinsic and extrinsic elements are reflected in academics’ prosocial motivation. We offer important theoretical, managerial, and policy implications by significantly improving the understanding of academics’ prosocial motivation.

Suggested Citation

  • E Sormani & K Uude, 2022. "Academics’ prosocial motivation for engagement with society: The case of German academics in health science [Why Do Academics Engage Locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 962-971.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:962-971.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac042
    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. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    3. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2020. "From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 34-47.
    4. Linda H M van de Burgwal & Rana Hendrikse & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Aiming for impact: Differential effect of motivational drivers on effort and performance in knowledge valorisation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(5), pages 747-762.
    5. Bo Göransson & Rasigan Maharajh & Ulrich Schmoch, 2009. "New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 157-164, March.
    6. Rhoda Ahoba-Sam, 2019. "Why do academics engage locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger," Regional Studies, Regional Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 250-264, January.
    7. Kwadwo Atta-Owusu & Rune Dahl Fitjar, 2022. "What motivates academics for external engagement? Exploring the effects of motivational drivers and organizational fairness [The Nature of Academic Entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the Focus on," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 201-218.
    8. Iorio, Roberto & Labory, Sandrine & Rentocchini, Francesco, 2017. "The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 497-509.
    9. Pol, Eduardo & Ville, Simon, 2009. "Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 878-885, December.
    10. Linda H. M. van de Burgwal & Ana Dias & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Matilda Bölling & Yvonne Eriksson, 2016. "Collaboration with society: The future role of universities? Identifying challenges for evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 209-218.
    12. Henning Kroll & Friedrich Dornbusch & Esther Schnabl, 2016. "Universities' Regional Involvement in Germany: How Academics' Objectives and Opportunity Shape Choices of Activity," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(9), pages 1595-1610, September.
    13. Angelika Jaeger & Johannes Kopper, 2014. "Third mission potential in higher education: measuring the regional focus of different types of HEIs," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 34(2), pages 95-118, October.
    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. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    2. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    4. Oscar Llopis & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Julia Olmos-Peñuela & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2018. "Scientists’ engagement in knowledge transfer and exchange: Individual factors, variety of mechanisms and users," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 790-803.
    5. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    6. Bijedić, Teita & Schröder, Christian & Werner, Arndt & Chen, Xiangyu, 2023. "How do working conditions, network relationships, and institutional support offers effect entrepreneurial intentions of German university scientists?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    7. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    8. Suominen, Arho & Kauppinen, Henni & Hyytinen, Kirsi, 2021. "‘Gold’, ‘Ribbon’ or ‘Puzzle’: What motivates researchers to work in Research and Technology Organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    9. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    11. Kwadwo Atta-Owusu & Rune Dahl Fitjar, 2022. "What motivates academics for external engagement? Exploring the effects of motivational drivers and organizational fairness [The Nature of Academic Entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the Focus on," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 201-218.
    12. Diekhoff, Josefine & Krieger, Bastian & Licht, Georg & Rammer, Christian, 2019. "Stand der Messung von Interaktionen zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft im internationalen Vergleich," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 248650.
    13. Compagnucci, Lorenzo & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2020. "The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    14. Marius Băban & Călin Florin Băban & Tudor Mitran, 2023. "Universities as an External Knowledge Source for Industry: Investigating the Antecedents’ Impact on the Importance Perception of Their Collaboration in Open Innovation Using an Ordinal Regression-Neur," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    16. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    17. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    18. Chi-Yo Huang & Min-Jen Yang & Jeen-Fong Li & Hueiling Chen, 2021. "A DANP-Based NDEA-MOP Approach to Evaluating the Patent Commercialization Performance of Industry–Academic Collaborations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-26, September.
    19. Baran Grzegorz, 2020. "Social Innovation Living Labs as Platforms to Co-design Social Innovations," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 36-57, March.
    20. Annita Nugent & Ho Fai Chan & Uwe Dulleck, 2022. "Government funding of university-industry collaboration: exploring the impact of targeted funding on university patent activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 29-73, January.

    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:6:p:962-971.. 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.