Advertisement

Introduction

  • Lisa Börjesson
  • Isto Huvila
Chapter

Abstract

Research takes place in a variety of organizations throughout the society. In contrast to university-based research, considerably less has been written about research and its informational premises and conditions outside academia. This introductory chapter introduces the edited volume on research outside academia and asks what is research, who are engaged in it and why, how knowledge making works, what challenges and opportunities there are, how research informs and how it is informed by different actors and sources in extra-academic institutions.

Keywords

Research Knowledge making Information Academia Extra-academic research 

References

  1. Allen, D. (2009). From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 354–361.Google Scholar
  2. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge, 158–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Battley, B. (2017). Co-producing archival research with communication, reflexivity and friendship: Crossing the three-wire bridge. Archival Science, 17(4), 371–391.Google Scholar
  4. Boast, R., & Biehl, P. (2011). Archaeological knowledge production and dissemination in the digital age. In E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration (pp. 119–155). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  5. Böhme, G. (1997). The structures and prospects of knowledge society. Social Science Information, 36(3), 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borgman, C. L., Darch, P. T., Sands, A. E., & Golshan, M. S. (2016). The durability and fragility of knowledge infrastructures: Lessons learned from astronomy. In A. Grove, D. H. Sonnenwald, L. Harrison, C. Blake, C. Schlögl, I. Peters, et al. (Eds.), ASIST 2016 Proceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting. Silver Spring, MD: ASIS&T.Google Scholar
  8. Börjesson, L. (2016). Research outside academia? An analysis of resources in extra-academic report writing. In Proceedings of the 2016 ASIS&T Annual Meeting, Copenhagen (pp. 1–10). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301036.
  9. Börjesson, L. (2017). Resources for scholarly documentation in professional service organizations. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  10. Bowker, G. C. (2005). Memory practices in the sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bowker, G. C. (2010). The archive. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 7(2), 212–214.Google Scholar
  12. Bowker, G. C. (2017). Energy and the archive. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 11(2), bw–cc.Google Scholar
  13. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brückweh, K. (2015). Menschen zählen: Wissensproduktion durch britische Volkszählungen und Umfragen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis ins digitale Zeitalter [Britain counts: Knowledge production in censuses and survey research from the nineteenth century to the digital age]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camic, C., Gross, N., & Lamont, M. (Eds.). (2011). Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2016). Information flows as bases for archaeology-specific geodata infrastructures: An exploratory study in Flanders. JASIST, 67(8), 1928–1942.Google Scholar
  20. Finnegan, R. H. (Ed.). (2005). Participating in the knowledge society: Researchers beyond the university walls. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Fleming, P. (2014). Resisting work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fochler, M. (2016). Beyond and between academia and business: How austrian biotechnology researchers describe high-tech startup companies as spaces of knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(2), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: A domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gullbekk, E. (2016). Apt information literacy? A case of interdisciplinary scholarly communication. Journal of Documentation, 72(4), 716–736.Google Scholar
  27. Haider, J. (2018). Openness as tool for acceleration and measurement: Reflections on problem representations underpinning open access and open science. In U. Herb & J. Schöpfel (Eds.), Open divide? Critical studies on open access. Sacramento: Litwin Books.Google Scholar
  28. Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.Google Scholar
  29. Hjørland, B., & Hartel, J. (2003). Ontological, epistemological and sociological dimensions of domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 239–245.Google Scholar
  30. Huebner, B., Kukla, R., & Winsberg, E. (2018). Making an author in radically collaborative research. In T. Boyer-Kassem (Ed.), Scientific collaboration and collective knowledge: New essays (pp. 95–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work—A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organization. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Diss.: Åbo Akademi University. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-765-337-9.
  32. Huvila, I. (2009). Ecological framework of information interactions and information infrastructures. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 695–708.Google Scholar
  33. Huvila, I. (2011). The complete information literacy? Unforgetting creation and organization of information. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 43(4), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huvila, I. (2013). How a museum knows? Structures, work roles, and infrastructures of information work. JASIST, 64(7), 1375–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huvila, I. (2018). Ecology of archaeological information work. In I. Huvila (Ed.), Archaeology and archaeological information in the digital society (pp. 121–141). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Graversen, E. K. (2018). Persistent factors facilitating excellence in research environments. Higher Education, 75(2), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44(4), 498–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: A comparative analysis. In U. Teichler (Ed.), The formative years of scholars (pp. 67–78). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  39. Khazraee, E., & Gasson, S. (2015). Epistemic objects and embeddedness: Knowledge construction and narratives in research networks of practice. The Information Society, 31(2), 139–159.Google Scholar
  40. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kwiek, M., & Antonowicz, D. (2015). The changing paths in academic careers in European universities: Minor steps and major milestones. In Academic work and careers in Europe: Trends, challenges, perspectives (pp. 41–68). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, B. R., Nightingale, P., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012). Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1182–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. May, C. (2002). The information society: A sceptical view. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. Miele, F. (2014). Organizations as boundary objects: Organizing business between research and the market. In A. Mongili & G. Pellegrino (Eds.), Information infrastructure(s): Boundaries, ecologies, multiplicity (pp. 238–257). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Moore, S. A. (2017). A genealogy of open access: Negotiations between openness and access to research. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 11. http://rfsic.revues.org/3220.
  47. Nilsson, E. V. (2015). Forskningsartiklarna har försvunnit för mig [Research articles have disappeared from my reach]. Tidningen Curie. http://www.tidningencurie.se/22/kronikor/kronikor/2015-09-10-emil-v.-nilsson-forskningsartiklarna-har-forsvunnit-for-mig.html.
  48. Nordenflycht, A. V. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155–174.Google Scholar
  49. Nowotny, H. (2010). The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science and the law. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. T., & Scott, P. B. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  51. Palmer, C. L., & Cragin, M. H. (2008). Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 163–212.Google Scholar
  52. Palmer, C. L., Cragin, M. H., & Hogan, T. P. (2007). Weak information work in scientific discovery. Information Processing & Management, 43, 808–820.Google Scholar
  53. Palmer, C. L., & Neumann, L. J. (2002). The information work of interdisciplinary humanities scholars: Exploration and translation. Library Quarterly, 72(1), 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer, C. L., Teffeau, L. C., & Pirmann, C. M. (2009). Scholarly information practices in the online environment: Themes from the literature and implications for library service development (Report commissioned by OCLC research). Dublin, OH: OCLC.Google Scholar
  55. Pickering, A., & Guzik, K. (2008). The mangle in practice: Science, society, and becoming. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pilerot, O. (2016). A practice-based exploration of the enactment of information literacy among PhD students in an interdisciplinary research field. Journal of Documentation, 72(3), 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Savolainen, R. (2009). Information use and information processing: Comparison of conceptualizations. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schiffer, M. B. (2014). The archaeology of science: Studying the creation of useful knowledge. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  59. Singleton, V. (2007). Training and resuscitating healthy citizens in the English New Public Health—Normativities in process. In K. Asdal, B. Brenna, & I. Moser (Eds.), Technoscience—The politics of interventions (pp. 221–246). Oslo: Unipub.Google Scholar
  60. Sismondo, S. (2011). An introduction to science and technology studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Star, S. L. (1983). Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1994). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. In CSCW ’94: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 253–264). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  63. Steinerová, J. (2010). Ecological dimensions of information literacy. Information Research, 15(4). Special supplement: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on conceptions of library and information science—Unity in diversity—Part 2. http://informationr.net/ir/15-4/colis719.html.
  64. Stengers, I. (2000). The invention of modern science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  65. Styhre, A. (2018). Intersectionality and professional work in the life sciences: Constructing identities on the basis of affirmation, dis-identification, and professional distancing. Ephemera, 18(1), 51–79.Google Scholar
  66. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sundin, O., Limberg, L., & Lundh, A. (2008). Constructing librarians’ information literacy expertise in the domain of nursing. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  68. Talja, S., & Maula, H. (2003). Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 673–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thulin, C. (2008). Forskning i kommunens tjänst: kommundoktorander som brobyggare mellan forskning och praktik [Research for the municipal good: Municipal doctoral students bridging practice and research]. Stockholm: Sveriges kommuner och landsting.Google Scholar
  70. Webster, F. (2006). Theories of the information society (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  72. Wynholds, L. A., Wallis, J. C., Borgman, C. L., Sands, A., & Traweek, S. (2012). Data, data use, and scientific inquiry: Two case studies of data practices. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL ’12 (pp. 19–22). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ALMUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations