Abstract
The aim of this paper is to investigate the organization of research in high-performing research groups in an age of increasing competition and pressure from outside and within higher-education institutions. To explore how researchers navigate such pressures and demands, the practice and perceptions of four high-performing research groups in Denmark and the Netherlands are examined, and the extent to which these groups can be understood as “communities of practice” or if they are displaying “team”-like characteristics is discussed. Previous studies have shown the benefits of communities of practice for organizational performance, and the present study demonstrates that the successful groups do indeed share many characteristics with such communities. A central argument of the paper is, however, also that incentive structures, inherent in many new policy initiatives that are meant to foster excellence in science, are more directed at “team-like” organization by focusing on, e.g., formally organized work processes, predefined goals, milestones, work packages, and hierarchically organized consortia. The potential implications of this are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This study was conducted by Lise Degn and Mads P. Sørensen, and data from this project has also been used in Young et al. (2016).
This study was carried out by Sarah de Rijcke and Alex Rushforth, and findings from this project were also published in Rushforth and De Rijcke (2015) and Müller and De Rijcke (forthcoming).
This study was conducted by Thomas Franssen and Sarah de Rijcke.
References
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385–397.
Bloch, C., & Sørensen, M. P. (2015). The size of research funding: trends and implications. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 30–43.
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press.
de Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2015). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038.
Dunbar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 683–685). Oxford: Elsevier.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2013). Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 774–792.
Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., & Völker, T. (2013). Growing into what? The (un-) disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research. Higher Education, 65(4), 511–524.
Fontaine, M. A., & Millen, D. R. (2004). Understanding the benefits and impact of communities of practice. In P. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: innovation through communities of practice (pp. 1–13). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Fowler, N., Lindahl, M., & Sköld, D. (2015). The projectification of university research. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(1), 9–32.
Hammarfelt, B., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63–77.
Horta, H., & Lacy, T. A. (2011). How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 449.
Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239.
Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. R., Foss Hansen, H., Kallerud, E., & Pelkonen, A. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: a comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu083.
Laudel, G., & Gläser, J. (2006). Tensions between evaluations and communication practices. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 289–295.
Lave J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831.
LSE Impact Blog. (2017)The accelerated academy. Retrieved at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/the-accelerated-academy-series/
OECD. (2014). Promoting research excellence: new approaches to funding. Paris: OECD.
Park, J. J., Choe, N. H., Schallert, D. L., & Forbis, A. K. (2017). The chemical engineering research laboratory as context for graduate students’ training: the role of lab structure and cultural climate in collaborative work. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.04.001.
Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.
Rushforth, A., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva, 53(2), 117–139.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Schenkel, A., & Teigland, R. (2008). Improved organizational performance through communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 106–118.
Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smeby, J. C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619.
Sørensen, M. P., Bloch, C., & Young, M. (2015). Excellence in the knowledge-based economy: from scientific to research excellence. European Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1015106.
Storck, J., & Hill, P. A. (2000). Knowledge diffusion through “strategic communities”. In E. L. Lesser, M. A. Fontaine, & J. A. Slusher (Eds.), Knowledge and communities (pp. 65–83). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: an a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 395–411.
Tight, M. (2008). Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis. Higher Education, 55(5), 593–605.
Verbree, M., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Academic leadership of high-performing research groups. Creativity and Leadership in Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Vostal, F. (2016). Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Springer.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, B. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Whitley, R. (2014). How do institutional changes affect scientific innovations? The effects of shifts in authority relationships, protected space, and flexibility. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (eds.) Organizational transformation and scientific change: the impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 42)(pp.367–406). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ylijoki, O. H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45(3), 307–335.
Young, M., Sørensen, M. P., Bloch, C., & Degn, L. (2016, 2016). Systemic rejection: political pressures seen from the science system. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0059-z.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Degn, L., Franssen, T., Sørensen, M.P. et al. Research groups as communities of practice—a case study of four high-performing research groups. High Educ 76, 231–246 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0205-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0205-2