• Isto HuvilaEmail author
  • Lisa Börjesson


Research outside of academia differs from academic research in many respects. Even if they are intertwined and often overlap, extra-mural research engages different stakeholders, it is disseminated using different channels, and the knowledge that is made in extra-academic contexts is often produced for different purposes than those within academic research. The chapters of the volume on research outside of academia highlight the need to understand what research means in different situations and that there tends to be a reason why knowledge making differs from one context to another. A comprehensive understanding of what research is and how and why it is conducted with different intra- and extra-mural conditions is a necessary premise to be able to evaluate and understand different types of knowledge, their premises, rationale and implications without ending up in uninhibited relativization or lack of understanding of how research can and cannot help people to know.


Knowing Research Extra-academic research Output Dissemination Researchers 


  1. Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. ARIST, 41(1), 273–306.Google Scholar
  4. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finnegan, R. (2007). Should we notice researchers outside the university? British Academy Review, 10, 58–61.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.Google Scholar
  8. Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the knowledge translation metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501–509.Google Scholar
  9. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches—Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huvila, I. (2012). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huvila, I. (2016). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huvila, I., Anderson, T. D., Jansen, E. H., McKenzie, P., & Worrall, A. (2017). Boundary objects in information science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 1807–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kagawa, S., & Moro, Y. (2009). Spinozic reconsiderations of the concept of activity: Politico-affective process and discursive practice in transitive learning. In A. L. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 176–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lapsley, I., & Oldfield, R. (2001). Transforming the public sector: Management consultants as agents of change. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 523–543.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Saracevic, T. (2010). The notion of context in “Information Interaction in Context”. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX ’10) (pp. 1–2). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, D. (2003). Collaborative research: Policy and the management of knowledge creation in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 131–157.Google Scholar
  21. Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ALMUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations