Projectification of Science as an Organizational Innovation

A Figurational Sociological Perspective on Emergence, Diffusion, and Impact
Chapter

Abstract

A central question of innovation research is how innovation processes occur at the macro, meso, and micro levels (Hutter et al., this volume). In this contribution, we use figurational sociology to make sense of this dynamic interaction (Elias 1978, 2009) and illustrate the usefulness of figurational sociology for innovation research. We focus on one sphere of action (Baur 2008): science.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akremi, Leila. 2014. “Stichprobenziehung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung.” Pp. 265-282 in Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, edited by N. Baur and J. Blasius. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  2. Ametowobla, Dzifa, Nina Baur, and Maria Norkus. Forthcoming. “Analyseverfahren in der empirischen Organisationsforschung.” In: Handbuch Empirische Organisationsforschung, edited by S. Liebig, W. Matiaske, and S. Rosenbohm. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, Michael B., Robert J. De Fillippi, and Candace Jones. 2001. “Project-Based Learning as the Interplay of Career and Company Non-Financial Capital.” Management Learning 32(1): 99-117.Google Scholar
  4. Baecker, Dirk. 1999. “Einfache Komplexität.” Pp. 169-197 in Organisation als System - Aufsätze, edited by D. Baecker. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  5. Baier, Christian and Richard Münch. 2013. “Institutioneller Wettbewerb und Karrierechancen von Nachwuchswissenschaftlern in der Chemie.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie (KZFSS) 65(1): 129-155.Google Scholar
  6. Barlösius, Eva. 2016. “Wissenschaftliche Infrastrukturen.” Pp. 206-236 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  7. Baur, Nina. 2005. Verlaufsmusteranalyse. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Baur, Nina. 2008. “Taking Perspectivity Seriously. A Suggestion of a Conceptual Framework for Linking Theory and Methods in Longitudinal and Comparative Research.” Historical Social Research 33(4): 191-213.Google Scholar
  9. Baur, Nina. 2011. “Mixing Process-Generated Data in Market Sociology.” Quality & Quantity 45(6): 1233-1251. doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9288-x.Google Scholar
  10. Baur, Nina and Siegfried Lamnek. 2005. “Einzelfallanalyse.” Pp. 241-252 in Qualitative Medienforschung, edited by L. Mikos and C. Wegener. Constance: UVK.Google Scholar
  11. Baur, Nina and Stefanie Ernst. 2011. “Towards a Process-Oriented Methodology. Modern Social Science Research Methods and Norbert Elias’ Figurational Sociology.” The Sociological Review 59(s1): 117-139.Google Scholar
  12. Baur, Nina and Pia Wagner. 2013. “Die moderne Sozialstrukturanalyse und das Problem der Operationalisierung von Intersektionalität.” Erwägen Wissen Ethik (EWE) 24(3): 357-359.Google Scholar
  13. Baur, Nina, Martina Löw, Linda Hering, Anna Laura Raschke, and Florian Stoll. 2014. “Die Rationalität lokaler Wirtschaftspraktiken im Friseurwesen.” Pp. 299-327 in Soziologie des Wirtschaftlichen, edited by D. Bögenhold. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Baur, Nina, Cristina Besio, Maria Norkus, and Grit Petschick. 2016 “Wissenschaft als Mehrebenen-Phänomen.” Pp. 13-46 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  15. Beer, John J. 1975. “Die Teerfarbenindustrie und die Anfänge des industriellen Forschungslaboratoriums.” Pp. 106-118 in Moderne Technikgeschichte, edited by K. Hausen and R. Rürup. Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.Google Scholar
  16. Besio, Cristina. 2009. Forschungsprojekte. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  17. Besio, Cristina and Robert J. Schmidt. 2012. Innovation als spezifische Form sozialer Evolution (Working Papers TUTS-WP-3-2012). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. Besio, Cristina, Maria Norkus, and Nina Baur. 2016. “Projekte und Wissenschaft.” Pp. 343-372 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  19. Blomquist, Tomas and Anders J. Söderholm. 2002. “How Project Management Got Carried Away.” Pp. 25-38 in Beyond Project Management, edited by K. Sahlin-Andersson and A. Söderholm. Kopenhagen: Liber.Google Scholar
  20. Buchhofer, Bernd. 1979. Projekt und Interview. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, W. Bernard. 1997. “Innovation and the Modern Corporation.” Pp. 203-226 in Science in the Twentieth Century, edited by J. Krige and D. Pestre. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. DeStatis (Statistisches Bundesamt). 2012. Monetäre hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen (Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.3.2-2012). Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  23. EFI (Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation), ed. 2012. Zur Situation der Forschung an Deutschlands Hochschulen (Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 16-2012). Shared paper of ISI (Frauenhofer Instituts für System- und Innovationsforschung), JR (Joanneum Research), Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft/Wissenschaftsstatistik GmbH, WZB (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin), and ZEW (Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH). Berlin, Vienna: EFI. Retrieved March 25, 2015 (http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Innovationsstudien_2012/StuDIS_16_ZEW_WZB_Joanneum_ISI.pdf).
  24. Elias, Norbert. 1978. What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Elias, Norbert. 1995. “Figuration.” Pp. 75-78 in Grundbegriffe der Soziologie, edited by B. Schäfers. 4th ed. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  26. Elias, Norbert. 2009. “Sociology in Danger: the Case for the Reorientation of a Discipline.” Pp. 93-98 in Essays III: On Sociology and the Humanities (Collected Works, vol. 16), edited by R. Kilminster and S. Mennel. Dublin: UCD Press.Google Scholar
  27. Forman, Paul. 1974. “The Financial Support and Political Alignment of Physicists in Weimar Germany.” Minerva 12(1): 39-66.Google Scholar
  28. Geiger, Roger L. 1986. “Organized Research Units—Their Role in the Development of University Research”. Journal of Higher Education 61(1): 1-19.Google Scholar
  29. Hack, Lothar and Irmgard Hack. 1985. Die Wirklichkeit, die Wissen schafft. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  30. Hallonsten, Olof and Thomas Heinze. 2013. “From Particle Physics to Photon Science: Multi-Dimensional and Multi-Level Renewal at DESY and SLAC.” Science and Public Policy 40(5): 591-603.Google Scholar
  31. Heidenreich, Martin and Nina Baur. 2015. “Locations of Corporate Headquarters in Europe.” Pp. 177-207 in Transnational Corporations and Transnational Governance, edited by S. Lundan. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  32. Heidenreich, Martin and Jannika Mattes. 2012. “Regional Embeddedness of Multinational Companies and their Limits. A Typology.” Pp. 29-58 in Institutional Embeddedness of Multinational Companies, edited by M. Heidenreich. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Heinz, Walter R., Kolja Briedis, and Georg Jongmanns. 2016. “Alter(n) und Wissenschaftskarrieren.” Pp. 552-579 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  34. Heinze, Thomas. 2016. “Außeruniversitäre Forschung.” Pp. 259-307 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  35. Helfferich, Cornelia. 2014. “Leitfaden- und Experteninterviews.” Pp. 559-574 in Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, edited by N. Baur and J. Blasius. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  36. Hergesell, Jannis. 2015. Soziogenetische Dispositive der Pflegefiguration – zur soziohistorischen Entwicklung der beruflichen Krankenpflege in Deutschland (Unpublished master’s thesis). Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  37. Hobday, Mike. 2000. “The Project-Based Organization: An Ideal Form for Managing Complex Products and Systems?” Research Policy 29(7-8): 871-893.Google Scholar
  38. Hohn, Hans-Willy and Uwe Schimank. 1990. Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  39. Hounshell, David A. 1992. “Du Pont and the Management of Large-Scale Research and Development.” Pp. 236-264 in Big Science, edited by P. Galison and B. Hevly. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hutter, Michael, Hubert Knoblauch, Werner Rammert, and Arnold Windeler. This volume. “Innovation Society Today. The Reflexive Creation of Novelty.”Google Scholar
  41. IfD Allensbach. 2013. “Allensbacher Berufsprestige-Skala 2013. Hohes Ansehen für Ärzte und Lehrer – Reputation von Hochschulprofessoren und Rechtsanwälten rückläufig.” Allensbacher Kurzbericht, August 20, 2013. Retrieved December 30, 2015 (http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/uploads/tx_reportsndocs/PD_2013_05.pdf).
  42. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2014a. Communicative Action, Reflexivity, and Innovation Society (Working Papers TUTS-WP-3-2014). Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  43. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2014b. “Ethnographie.” Pp. 521-528 in Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, edited by N. Baur and J. Blasius. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  44. Kohler, Robert E. 1978. “A Policy for the Advancement of Science.” Minerva 16(4): 480-515.Google Scholar
  45. Korte, Hermann. 1987. Eine Gesellschaft im Aufbruch. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. Krauch, Helmut. 1970. Die organisierte Forschung. Berlin and Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  47. Kreckel, Reinhard and Peer Pasternack. 2008. “Prämissen des Ländervergleichs.” Pp. 1-79 in Zwischen Promotion und Professur, edited by R. Kreckel. Leipzig: AVA.Google Scholar
  48. Kreckel, Reinhard. 2011. “Universitäre Karrierestruktur als deutscher Sonderweg.” Pp. 7-60 in Traumjob Wissenschaft? Karrierewege in Hochschule und Forschung, edited by K. Himpele, A. Keller, andA. Ortmann. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  49. Kreibich, Rolf. 1986. Die Wissenschaftsgesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  50. Levene, Ralph J. 1996. “Project Management.” Pp. 4162-4181 in International Encyclopedia of Business & Management, No. 4, edited by M. Warner. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Meier, Frank. 2016. “Universitäten.” Pp. 237-258 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  52. Merton, Robert K. and Barber Elinor. 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nipperdey, Thomas. 1998. Deutsche Geschichte, 1866-1918, Bd. 1: Arbeitswelt und Bürgergeist. Munich: Beck Verlag.Google Scholar
  54. Nipperdey, Thomas and Ludwig Schmugge. 1970. 50 Jahre Forschungsförderung in Deutschland. Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.Google Scholar
  55. Noble, David F. 1977. America by Design. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  56. Norkus, Maria, Cristina Besio, and Nina Baur. 2016. “Effects of Project-Based Research Work on the Career Paths of Young Academics. ” Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation 10(2): 9-26.Google Scholar
  57. Otte, Gunnar and Nina Baur. 2008. “Urbanism as a Way of Life?” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 37(2): 93-116.Google Scholar
  58. Petschick, Grit. 2015. “Ethnographic Panels for Analyzing Innovation Processes.” Historical Social Research 40(3): 210-232.Google Scholar
  59. Petschick, Grit. 2016. “Publikationspraktiken.” Pp. 480-509 in Wissen – Organisation – Forschungspraxis, edited by N. Baur, C. Besio, M. Norkus, and G. Petschick. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  60. Prencipe, Andrea and Fredrik Tell. 2001. “Inter-Project Learning: Processes and Outcomes of Knowledge Codification in Project-Based Firms.” Research Policy 30(9): 1373-1394.Google Scholar
  61. Price, Don K. 1978. “Endless Frontier or Bureaucratic Morass?” Daedalus 107(2): 75-92.Google Scholar
  62. Richter, Steffen. 1979. “Wirtschaft und Forschung.” Technikgeschichte 46(1): 20-44.Google Scholar
  63. Riedl, Josef E. 1990. Projekt-Controlling in Forschung und Entwicklung. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Salheiser, Axel. 2014. “Natürliche Daten: Dokumente.” Pp. 813-828 in Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, edited by N. Baur and J. Blasius. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  65. Schimank, Hans. 1976. “Physik und Chemie im 19. Jahrhundert. Ihre Abkunft, ihre Hilfsmittel und ihre Wandlungen.” Pp. 371-397 in Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, Bd. 2, edited by W. Treue and K. Mauel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  66. Schwab, Andreas and Anne S. Miner. 2011. “Organizational Learning Implications of Partnering Flexibility in Project-Venture Settings.” Pp. 115-145 in Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management (Advances in Strategic Management 28), edited by G. Cattani, S. Ferriani, L. Frederiksen, and F. Täube. Bringley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  67. Stichweh, Rudolf. 1988. “Differenzierung des Wissenschaftssystems.” Pp. 45-115 in Differenzierung und Verselbständigung, edited by R. Mayntz, B. Rosewitz, U. Schimank, and R. Stichweh. Frankfurt, New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  68. Sydow, Jörg, Lars Lindkvist, and Robert De Fillippi. 2004. “Project-Based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial.” Organization Studies 25(9): 1475-1489.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, Peter J., Michael Hoyler, and David M. Evans. 2008. “A Geohistorical Study of ‘The Rise of Modern Science‘: Mapping Scientific Practice Trough Urban Networks, 1500-1900.” Minerva 46(4): 391-410.Google Scholar
  70. Teichler, Ulrich. 1990. Das Hochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Weinheim: Deutsche Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  71. Torka, Marc. 2009. Die Projektförmigkeit der Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  72. WR (Wissenschaftsrat). 2000. Drittmittel und Grundmittel der Hochschulen 1993 bis 1998. Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat. Retrieved March 26, 2015 (http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/4717-00.pdf).
  73. WR (Wissenschaftsrat). 2002. Eckdaten und Kennzahlen zur Lage der Hochschulen von 1980 bis 2000. Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat. Retrieved March 25, 2015 (http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/5125-02.pdf).
  74. Zierold, Kurt. 1968. Forschungsförderung in drei Epochen. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TU BerlinBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Helmut Schmidt Universität - Universität der Bundeswehr HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations