Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. Adhering to the CINHEKS premise that there is much to be learned from how researchers negotiate methodological and conceptual challenges, the first part of the chapter describes the evolution of the third and final stage of a sequential mixed-methods study: the large-scale, mixed-methods international survey. Our discussion focuses on the elements of continuity and disruption (“fractures”) that contributed to the design and implementation of the survey. We examine the crucial role that these fractures played in shaping the final focus and format of the hybrid survey, which introduced an innovative use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) to explore patterns of collaboration between academics and external partners in US, the UK, Finland, and Portugal across career stages.
The unique survey design unveiled an aspect of academic collaborations not considered in the university-industry literature: the “bridge-function” played by early career researchers (ECRs), that is, the role that ECRs such as postdocs and adjuncts play in brokering partnerships with external entities. In the discussion section, we explain how this bridge-building function belies the changing nature of academic work worldwide, where contractual and temporary staff may now be invisibly becoming responsible for much of the partnering work usually associated with tenure-track or equivalent faculty, but obtaining little credit for this work. The conclusion bring both parts of the chapter together by discussing the structural invisibility of ECRs in CINHEKS itself, and provides recommendations for future international collaboration research, especially the case of inter-generational research teams.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Also, “The CINHEKS Chronicles” had an epic ring to it that resonated with the vicissitudes we faced in the course of implementing the study.
- 2.
It is worthwhile noting that when the Portuguese IP proposed this idea to be implemented by all IPs, this proposal was declined. This was certainly understandable as certain practices do not work as well in some cultures and institutions as they might work on others (which in itself are a quite relevant result of this project).
- 3.
A postdoc.
- 4.
In the US team, the senior scholars served primarily in advisory roles and as the point people when meeting with other country teams.
References
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.
Chakrabarti, A. K., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Building social capital and learning environment in university–industry relationships. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 19–36.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gluck, M. E. (1987). University-industry relationships in biotechnology: Implications for society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Gumport, P. J. (2005). Graduate education and research: Interdependence and strain. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 425–461). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoffman, D. M., Blasi, B., Ćulum, B., Dragšić, Ž., Ewen, A., Horta, H., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2013). The methodological illumination of a blind spot: Information and communication technology and international research team dynamics in a higher education research program. Higher Education, 67(4), 473–495.
Iten, C. (2008, June). Ceramics mended with lacquer: Fundamental aesthetic principles, techniques and artistic concepts. In Flickwerk: The aesthetics of mended Japanese ceramics. Exhibition catalogue, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Kollasch, A. (2012). Ties that bind international research teams: A network multilevel model of interdisciplinary collaboration. PhD dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Lee, J., Torres-Olave, B., Kollasch, A., & Rhoades, G. (2014). Conceptions and enactments of university service in the new knowledge economy: Case studies from STEM faculty in the US. In J. Shin & U. Teichler (Eds.), The future of the post-massified university at the crossroads: Restructuring systems and functions (pp. 119–141). Netherlands: Springer.
Louis, S., Holdsworth, J., Anderson, M., & Campbell, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and organizational climate. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 311–336.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96.
Mendoza, P., & Berger, J. (2008). Academic capitalism and academic culture: A case study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(23), 1–24.
Mendoza, P., Kuntz, A. M., & Berger, J. B. (2012). Bourdieu and academic capitalism: Faculty “habitus” in materials science and engineering. Journal of Higher Education, 83(4), 558–581.
Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55–78.
Rhoades, G., & Torres-Olave, B. (2015). Academic capitalism and academic labor markets: Negotiating a new academy and research agenda. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: A handbook of theory and research (Vol. 30, pp. 383–430). Dordrecht: Springer.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Hollernan, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 27(2), 282–313.
Slaughter, S., Archerd, C. J., & Campbell, T. I. D. (2004). Boundaries and quandaries: How professors negotiate market relations. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 129–165.
Torres-Olave, B., Kollasch, A., Rios-Aguilar, C., Lee, J., & Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Geographies of opportunity: A spatial/sectoral social network analysis of U.S. university ties to external actors. Presentation at the CHER 2011 annual conference, 23–25 June, Reykjavik, University of Iceland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Torres-Olave, B., Horta, H., Kollasch, A., Lee, J., Rhoades, G. (2016). The CINHEKS Comparative Survey: Emerging Design, Findings, and the Art of Mending Fractured Vessels. In: Hoffman, D., Välimaa, J. (eds) RE-BECOMING UNIVERSITIES?. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7368-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7369-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)