Abstract
The paper discusses research leadership in public universities under change and the role of entrepreneurial strategies in research. Research leadership function today in situations where the New Public Management movement one the one hand have introduced management by accountability and control in the university while on the other hand open boundaries to other knowledge organizations, arenas and networks, and creation of resources are becoming more important than ever. Hence, an entrepreneurial strategy is more important than traditional managerial skills in order to produce new knowledge centres. By analysing two cases on the construction of new research groups, we will introduce new perspectives on research leadership, where dilemmas, uncertainty and complex relations to other managerial systems in the universities are in the forefront. The paper presents an important contribution to the understanding of a special form of creating new knowledge production in the university by means of organizational entrepreneurship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analysis by Gibbons et al. (1994) and Notwotny et al. (2001) has been criticized for lack of systematically empirical support and for exaggerating the importance of various observations (Audétat 2001; Fuller 2001; Weingart 2000; Godin 1998). Despite these criticisms, however, there seems to be broad agreement that recent changes in modern science and knowledge production is owed mainly to the growing influence of market forces on science.
The external teachers are cheaper for the studies, as they have shorter hours of preparation.
In Denmark PhD students are young researchers employed on normal academic terms for 3 years on a specific PhD project.
Two of the books produced have been shortlisted among 10 in a large newspaper’s competition for the best book of the year. One of these was a PhD thesis by Steen Andersen (2005) De gjorde verden Større, and a large study by the former group leader Ole Lange (2006), Stormogulen. The researchers at the centre together have a regular weekly column in a large newspaper, writing analytical comments on business events to make themselves known in the business community.
With less than 50% time for research according to the contract. Danish university researchers do not even count as researchers in the OECD statistics.
References
Adler, P. S. & Seok, W. K. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Alvesson, M. (2003a). Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46, 167–193.
Alvesson, M. (2003b). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.
Andersen, S. (2005). De gjorde Danmark større. København: Lindhardt og Ringhof.
Audétat, M. (2001). Re-thinking science, re-thinking society. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 950–956.
Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work. London: Transaction Publishers.
Bourdieu, P. (1981). The specificity of the scientific field. In C. C. Lemert (Ed.), French sociology. Rupture and renewal since 1968 (pp. 257–292). New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998) Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK Universitätsverlag.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure. Oxford University Press.
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1998). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley: Harlow.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities – Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Clark, W. (2006). Academic charisma and the origins of the research university. University of Chicago Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(supplement), 95–120.
Connell, H. (2004). University research management. Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris: OECD Publications.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1992). Nadel’s paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, from, and action. (pp. 118–142). Boston: Harvard University Press.
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, 109–123.
Foss Hansen, H. & Finn, B. (2000). The local construction and entactment of standards for research evaluation. The case of the Copenhagen Business School. Evaluation, 6(3), 281–299.
Fuller, S. (2001). Knowledge management foundations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S. S. P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Godin, B. (1998). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of the weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Hjorth, D. (2003). Rewriting entrepreneurship – For a new perspective on organisational creativity. Copenhagen/Malmö/Oslo: CBS Press/Liber/Abstrakt.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.
Johannisson, B. (1998). Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: Spatial and functional patterns. Entrepreneurship and Regional development, 10, 297–312.
Johannisson, B., & Mønsted, M. (1997). Contextualising entrepreneurial networking – The case of Scandinavia. International Studies of Management Organisation, 27(3), 109–136.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Lange, O. (2006). Stormogulen. Gyldendal: Copenhagen.
Merton R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (pp. 156–171). New York: Free Press.
Nowotny, H., Gibbons, M., & Scott, P. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.
Rinne, R., & Koivula, J. (2005). The changing place of the university and clash of values. The entrepreneurial university in the European knowledge society. A review of literature. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17, 91–123.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power – and how they hold onto it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 3–21.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Steyaert, C. (2004). The Prosaics of entrepreneurship. In D. Hjorth & C. Steyaert (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship (pp. 8–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Taylor, J. (2006). Managing the unmanageable; the management of research in research-intensive universities. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18, 1–25.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Noisy organizations: Uncertainty, complexity, narrativity. In H. Tsoukas (Ed.), Complex knowledge. Studies in organizational epistemology (pp. 280–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251–289.
Weber, M. (1964/1947). The theory of social and economic organization (Eds. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons). New York: The Free Press.
Weingart, P. (2000). From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.
West, G. P. (2003). Connecting levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: A focus on information processing, asymmetric knowledge and networks. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 51–72). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hansson, F., Mønsted, M. Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research. High Educ 55, 651–670 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9081-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9081-5