Knowledge co-production in academic-practitioner research collaboration: An expanded perspective on power

Author:

McCabe Angela1ORCID,Osegowitsch Tom2,Parker Rachel3ORCID,Cox Stephen4

Affiliation:

1. La Trobe University, Australia

2. University of Melbourne, Australia

3. University of Queensland, Australia

4. Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Abstract

Knowledge co-production within academic-practitioner research collaborations is a promising means to address the pressing issue of research impact. Yet current theorising is hampered by a limited appreciation of power in the relationship between research partners. In this study, we explore various types of power and their effects on knowledge co-production in government-funded research collaborations. Drawing on interviews with academics and practitioners working on Australian Research Council Linkage Scheme projects, we initially document the prominence of structural and normative types of power, alongside resource power. We further show that both structural and normative power fail to conform to key principles of knowledge co-production. As a result, many of the projects studied fell short of the knowledge co-production ideal. Our investigation leads us to identify a boundary condition: knowledge co-production theory in its current form is bounded by resource power conditions. Our expanded perspective provides for an elaboration of knowledge co-production theory. We also explore the implications of our findings for business schools in search of impact.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management,General Decision Sciences

Reference98 articles.

1. AACSB (2012) Impact of research: A guide for business schools. Available at: https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/publications/research-reports/impact-of-research-exploratory-study.ashx?la=en (accessed 5 February 2020).

2. AACSB (2018) 2013 Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Available at: https://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards/business (accessed 5 February 2020).

3. When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings

4. Scholarly Impact: A Pluralist Conceptualization

5. Generating Research Questions Through Problematization

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3