Chosen, trusted and disillusioned – an autoethnographic account of university–society collaboration from an academic's point

Ulrica Nylén (Umeå School of Business, Economics, and Statistics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden)

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management

ISSN: 1746-5648

Article publication date: 21 November 2022

Issue publication date: 19 December 2022

2

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand the dynamic and power-laden nature of university–society collaboration from the individual academic's point of view.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper applies an autoethnographic approach in following a specific collaboration process through detailed fieldnotes and continuous reflections.

Findings

This research presents university–society collaboration as an emergent, volatile and fairly unpredictable process, involving a multitude of actors on both sides. The interactions among actors shape the emerging process and power relationships. The academic's situation could be understood in terms of multiple and shifting subject positions that could be embraced, accepted, resisted or surrendered to by the academic.

Practical implications

These findings may help academics with own experiences of collaboration to shed light on their observations. Novice academics, interested in collaborating with society, should be aware of the possibility of tensions and exercise of power in interactions with societal actors. When setting up collaboration agreements, academic and societal actors are advised to openly discuss potential problems and how to handle those.

Originality/value

This unique, in-depth testimony of a single collaboration process from the individual academic's point of view uncovers previously unobserved dynamic and political attributes of the process.

Keywords

Citation

Nylén, U. (2022), "Chosen, trusted and disillusioned – an autoethnographic account of university–society collaboration from an academic's point", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 135-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-12-2020-2075

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Ulrica Nylén

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


My story in short

This is the story about a collaboration process; it tells of an academic's experiences of the excitement, hurdles and complexity involved when engaging with societal actors. Committing this story to paper is an act of self-reflection and learning – hopefully it should also be illuminating for the academic reader interested in, or with own experiences from, collaborating with society.

The story begins when I am invited by an administrator at my university to join a national internship program aimed to promote collaboration between academia and society. I feel proud to have been invited and I find a suitable host organisation for my internship. We agree on my task, to evaluate a project as foundation for the organisation's decision on whether to turn the project into a permanent undertaking. My first interactions with societal actors appear promising; the project is interesting and key actors accept and value my presence. I hope to contribute to the organisation's needs as well as develop ideas for own research.

During the internship period, I have intense interactions with a multitude of actors within and around my host organisation. I become involved and trusted by project team members, but occasionally feel neglected by managerial actors. Some actors outside the project attempt to use me as a channel to, or a spokesperson for, the team. Unexpected rifts occur in the project, in which I come to intervene. Overall, the collaboration process becomes multifaceted, forming a volatile path between involvement and excitement vs exclusion and disappointment.

I complete my evaluation assignment, and initially get very appreciative feedback on the report. Additionally, new insights into the field have generated promising research ideas. As it turns out, however, I do not get to present my report to decision makers and, apparently, my recommendations are not considered. It also becomes difficult to uphold contacts after the end of the internship. Notwithstanding my collaboration journey process takes a somewhat disappointing end, it should offer interesting insights into the power dynamics involved in university–society collaboration.

Introduction

During the past decade, increasing pressure has been placed on universities to demonstrate their relevance and legitimacy for society by engaging in the “third mission” (Bacevic, 2017; Bölling and Eriksson, 2016; Bertilsson Forsberg, 2018). Collaboration with societal actors has thus been high on the strategic agenda at many universities world-wide (Benneworth et al., 2015; Compagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020); notwithstanding this trend is accompanied by a critical debate pinpointing the challenges and problems associated with naïve expectations on the dual fulfilment of scientific rigour and practical relevance (e.g. Butler et al., 2015; Sliwa and Kellard, 2021). Indeed, various conceptualizations of the phenomenon have materialized, such as “knowledge dissemination”, “technology transfer” or “university-industry collaboration”. Here, I will use the term university–society collaboration (USC) as it includes academy's relationships with both private and public sector organisations as well as various forms of engagement.

Extant literature on university-society collaboration often takes a functionalistic and rationalistic approach to provide guidance on how to effectively pursue collaboration and attain the dual goals (e.g. Bowen et al., 2017; Mitton et al., 2007). Notwithstanding good intensions with this line of research, it fails to problematize the role of conflicting interests or power relations involved in all human endeavour. As noted by Butler et al. (2015), collaboration often becomes a complex and tension-filled process; a line of inquiry worthy to extend.

Much attention has been paid to categorize alternative forms of collaboration, such as “research services”, “research partnership” (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007), “personal informal relationships” or “formal targeted agreements” (Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa, 2015) to mention a few. Even though this literature is valuable in demonstrating the variety in form and execution of collaboration, it applies a static view on USC that disregards the potential of collaboration as an emergent phenomenon with undetermined development. Moreover, considering that collaboration with external actors is generally carried out by individual academics, research from the individual's point of view seems limited (see, e.g. Special issue on universities' third mission edited by Pinheiro et al., 2015).

This paper adheres to a more critical line of USC research where the processual and potentially challenging character of collaboration endeavours is in focus (Orr and Bennett, 2012b; Butler et al., 2015). In particular, this paper will take the individual academic's perspective and concentrate on how interactions between the academic (me) and other actors (in both academia and society) unfold during a process of collaboration. Hence, it latches on to previous “confessions” made by academics such as Ceglowski (2000), Empson (2013), Mosleh and Larsen (2020) and Orr and Bennett (2012a). Still, whereas Ceglowski's (2000) and Mosleh and Larsen's (2020) work contribute to the ethnographic research field, this paper is particularly framed within university–society collaboration research. Empson (2013) provides interesting insights regarding individual experiences from engaging with society, but focuses on her identity work and not on collaboration as such. Orr and Bennett (2012a) enter deeply into their interactions as representatives for academia vs practice, but place limited attention to other actors involved in, or concerned by, their process of co-production. The current study focuses on the individual's ongoing interactions with a broad set of actors, thereby uncovering the dynamic and power-laden nature of collaboration.

The study follows, in real-time, a collaboration process in Sweden; also in this country, policy makers and university managers are placing increasing efforts to promote collaboration between academia and society (Benneworth et al., 2015; Bertilsson Forsberg, 2018). Considering the international trend to encourage and evaluate universities' contributions to society (Sliwa and Kellard, 2021), findings from this study should hopefully be relevant and illuminating outside this national context. The collaboration case was a nationwide initiative targeting academics' internship in business or public organisations. The chosen methodological approach is autoethnography, meaning to use subjective experiences to tell about a cultural phenomenon, thereby connecting the self (“auto”) with a wider social context (“ethno”). The research question that this paper intends to answer is: How could we understand collaboration as a dynamic and power-laden process if seen from the individual academic's point of view?

This paper suggests the following contributions to USC research. This unique empirical illustration of one collaboration process reveals the complex and volatile nature of collaboration where interactions among a multitude of actors, on both the university and society side, contribute to shape the emerging process and power relationships. This also suggests that it is not sufficient to view USC as a straightforward two-party engagement. Moreover, from the individual academic's point of view, the process could be understood in terms of multiple and shifting subject positions. As these subject positions emerge and evaporate, they may be met with appreciation, acceptance – or resistance by the academic. Finally, those academics involved or interested in collaboration, as well as administrators assigned to manage USC, should be aware of varying interests among involved actors and the potential of tensions and problems arising that, preferably, should be discussed and prepared beforehand.

Overall, this paper contributes to the ongoing shift from a static, functionalistic and organisation-oriented notion of university-society collaboration towards a processual, political and individually oriented approach.

Literature review

In literature applying a processual perspective on university–society collaboration, the process is often portrayed as an orderly progression of predetermined steps; actually, some processual models stop at “agreement signing” and exclude the actual implementation (see, e.g. Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa, 2015). Jacobson et al. (2005) apply a more comprehensive view and identify six stages from “preentry” to “postexit”; this has inspired me to roughly divide my collaboration process into three stages that follow the preparing, realization and outcomes of the internship.

Some research focuses motivations and drivers behind collaboration, or outcomes (e.g. D'Este and Perkmann, 2011); however mainly on the organisational level. Butler et al. (2015) study individual academic's motivations and rewards in practitioner engagement and reveal four dominant motivations: expecting to have a positive impact on the partner organisation; advancing scholarly ideas; gaining material rewards; and strengthening one's sense of self-worth. Still, this study did not show how these motivations possibly emerged or evaporated during the course of a collaboration process.

Notwithstanding relatively few studies take the individual's perspective, some papers address the academic's situation in terms of alternative roles. In a study on management consulting, Czarniawska and Mazza (2003) mention several roles such as “impression manager”, “story-teller” or “witch-doctor”; all of which portray the relationship between researcher and societal actors as generally symmetrical. Similarly, Bastuscheck (1996) identified 29 faculty roles, for instance the research role to “develop technology that could be transferred to tenant”. Generally, this line of research aims to identify the most effective roles yet disregards both power dynamics and possible conflicting interests.

Bacevic (2017) to some extent discusses power relations in USC, arguing that in collaboration through “co-production”, the academic has a power advantage as being the one to design and perform the study and draw conclusions. Individual testimonies however suggest a subordinate position for the academic (e.g. Mosleh and Larsen, 2020). Probably, both parties in a collaboration arrangement are potentially vulnerable.

In order to study collaboration as an open-ended, dynamic and power-laden process from the individual academic's point of view, I will now turn to literature outside the USC field. Doing an internship (at least in the format applied with my host organisation) could be likened with organisational ethnography; in this field, researchers are generally expected to reflect on their relationships with participants. When collectively analysing their experiences, Gilmore and Kenny (2015) found that they had both gained identification and belongingness with their respective field organisation while also feeling exclusion; this duality materializing in alternatively feeling in control vs lacking control over interactions. Consequently, the power dynamics between researcher and field actors were complicated and fluctuating.

In the neighbouring field of evaluation research, Harklau and Norwood (2005) argue for placing a postmodern perspective on evaluator roles in order to uncover their negotiated and fluid nature. The postmodern perspective tells us that human interactions are inherently value-based and power-laden; thus Harklau and Norwood (2005) set out to approach the academic's role as multiple and unstable subject positions, under constant definition and re-negotiation through interactions with stakeholders. Similarly, Dagg and Haugaard (2016, p. 398) state that subject positions “are different from social roles in that they are the product of interaction”. As such, subject positions reflect continuous exercise of power, involving unavoidable tensions and conflict, and may evoke resistance (Harklau and Norwood, 2005). Previously, the notion of subject positions has been applied in diverse research fields such as leadership, education and welfare studies (e.g. Autto and Törrönen, 2016; Splitter et al., 2021; Worthman and Troiano, 2019). For leadership research, Ladkin and Probert (2021) suggest a “Foucauldian” conceptualization of power, which would question the assumption that the leader automatically holds power. Instead, power is seen as a relational dynamic, an outcome of social interactions that manifest in subject positions. Indeed, an individual – such as a leader – is always subjected to the expectations, norms and institutional arrangements at play within the field (Ladkin and Probert, 2021). This view should be highly relevant also for researching collaboration between university and society, hence not assuming any predefined power balance.

Following from this theoretical framing, I will analyse my experiences of the collaboration process with a focus on how interactions with actors continuously generate multiple, potentially inconsistent subject positions. I see myself as active in this construction, and may accept or resist the outcome.

An autoethnographic approach

This study follows a specific collaboration process from start to end from the individual academic's point of view, using an autoethnographic approach. Autoethnography is a qualitative research method that aims to understand social phenomena through the author's/researcher's personal experiences (Winkler, 2018). Indeed, autoethnography could be seen as an ontology for approaching the world through the self in relation to a broader social and cultural context (Haynes, 2011, p. 142). Often claimed as particularly suitable when researching highly sensitive or emotional issues (Ellis et al., 2011), autoethnographic research may be relevant for any phenomenon requiring real-time process study where it is hard to convince potential research participants to share detailed experiences; then using personal data from the researcher.

Autoethnography has become widely accepted in many social science disciplines (see, e.g. Bryman and Buchanan, 2018; de Gama et al., 2019; Holman Jones et al., 2013). This increasing interest has resulted in various uses of the concept; Le Roux (2017) makes a distinction between “analytic” vs “evocative” autoethnography where the former is more oriented towards objective writing and analysis, whereas the latter focuses on subjective experiences and emotions. Despite intense debate (e.g. Ellis and Bochner, 2006, p. 431), some researchers reject the notion of one form being superior to the other (e.g. Winkler, 2018); a view to which I accede. Moreover, the distinction is hardly clear-cut but rather covers a range of alternatives (Le Roux, 2017). This paper could be seen as a combination; there is an analytical ambition to transcend my personal experiences and contribute to USC research; still, the story of my collaboration journey holds a key position. The upcoming section “My story” is permeated with subjective understandings of events as well as my emotions and personal reflections, in line with a “confessional-emotive” writing style (Chang, 2016).

Overall, I adhere to what Haynes (2011) categorizes as the “researcher-and-researched” alternative in autoethnography, where the purpose is to study something else through one's personal experiences. I draw this autoethnography in a narrative and reflective spirit (Cunliffe, 2018) with particular inspiration from Empson (2013), Huopalainen and Satama (2019) and Winkler (2014) as these authors also use personal experiences for theoretical development within their respective research fields.

Doing the autoethnography

I am a management scholar with an interest in multi-professional teamwork and interagency collaboration within human services. A couple of years ago, I was invited to participate in a nation-wide, governmentally funded university–society collaboration initiative aiming to encourage academic mobility. At each of the participating universities, three or four researchers (“movers”) were to complete a part-time “internship” in an external (“host”) organisation during half a year. I had previous experience of doing research in close collaboration with societal actors, also including evaluation of policy programs. From these experiences I had found it very stimulating to study issues of direct interest to practitioners while also realizing that it might be hard to gain acceptance for suggestions outside the practitioners' expectations. Therefore, I was not a beginner in USC contexts, and delighted when being invited to join the internship program as an opportunity to work with actors in the human services field.

From the very beginning, I kept a logbook on all internship-related contacts. For each interaction, I noted date, place and actors. I also described the type of interaction (e.g. telephone call, meeting, e-mail) and main contents (what we discuss, statements or promises made, information I receive, etc.). E-mails, interview transcripts and documents were entered in full or summarized.

When writing this paper, logbook notes bring me mentally back to the past, prompting retrospective recollections that also provide input to my story. Winkler (2018) argues that memory should be seen as a powerful and legitimate source for an autoethnography; however, I concur with Giorgio (2013, p. 411) that “memory is a complex tool”, both intangible and selective. Still, the main idea with an autoethnography is not the precise depiction of factual details but the reflection upon one's experiences for the goal to tell a story, where also the selectiveness of recollections contributes to construct a meaningful narrative (Giorgio, 2013).

In the logbook, there was also a column “Reflections” for my personal thoughts of each encounter. Reflections were often added several times; in direct connection to the event; later during the internship period; and again as retrospective (re-)reflections in preparation of this paper. These reflections are just as important for telling my story as the more descriptive parts of the logbook, much in line with Prasad (2014, p. 251) who points out the importance of “introspective-based data”. Moreover, (re-)reflections provide foundation for the analytical ambition of this paper.

As pointed out by Ellis et al. (2011), autoethnography involves both “doing”, i.e. performing the research, and “writing”, i.e. constructing the product. Having described the doing of the study I will now explain the writing of the story.

Writing the autoethnography

An autoethnography can take many forms: a novel, dramatized episodes, vignettes, field notes, etc. (Haynes, 2011). Ellis et al. (2011) suggest using evocative tools that bring the reader directly to the scene, e.g. by depicting dialogue, while also constructing a coherent narrative that communicate a bigger picture. In this paper, I tell the story of my internship journey through a personal, chronologically organized narrative, intermixed with vignettes in the shape of extracts from the logbook. The logbook was kept in Swedish; in this paper, excerpts have been translated to English.

The story is temporally organised into three stages: (1) Starting up (preparations for the internship), (2) Engagement (the actual internship period) and (3) Aftermath (experiences after the formal end of the internship). For each phase, I present my interactions with university administrators, project-related societal actors and actors in the surrounding healthcare context.

Each phase ends with an analytical summary where I discuss the subject positions that were constructed during this phase, in line with the previously presented theoretical framing. Elements of conceptually oriented analysis therefore interpose the story. Indeed, in an autoethnography there is no clear dividing line between “data” and “analysis”. I am always both “myself as research participant” having certain experiences and “myself as academic” critically reflecting upon my experiences. Yet, after My story comes a Discussion that further elevates the learning from this case, with theoretical support.

Critically reflecting on the autoethnography

All academic research must be prepared to stand up for scrutiny; however, evaluation should be consistent with the ontological and epistemological foundations. Several authors have discussed evaluation of autoethnographic research (e.g. Chang, 2016; Haynes, 2011; Le Roux, 2017). When critically reflecting upon my autoethnography, I will follow Chang's (2016) comprehensive quality criteria, including: authenticity and trustworthy data; accountability in the research process; protection of ethical rights of self and others; sociocultural analysis and interpretation; and scholarly contribution.

Regarding trustworthiness, I believe my empirical material is both authentic and thorough. I kept the logbook for my own sake without any intention or reason to deliberately distort or beautify my experiences. However, my notes and reflections are inherently subjective; I certainly do not attempt to be a “knowledgeable subject” (Winkler, 2018, p. 242) who could know and tell the truth – only to be as honest as possible about “my truth”. Hence, it is not within the scope of this paper to explain or interpret other actors' views. To demonstrate accountability, I am transparent regarding key methodological considerations.

Protection of ethical rights of participants relates to two issues: consent vs integrity. In my case, societal actors explicitly and voluntarily consented to me participating in meetings and/or to being interviewed, including my intention to potentially use the material for own research. Moreover, I have followed Medford's (2006, p. 862) advice to “write as if our subjects are in our audience”. Actors do not necessarily have to agree with what is written, but the author should be willing to be confronted by them, Medford (2006) says. I have also taken great care to protect the integrity of individuals. Hence, I have applied several of Tullis' (2013) measures such as assigning pseudonyms to all actors (with names that do not necessarily reflect the person's sex) and collapsing several individuals into a composite character. Further, I have omitted or fictionalized certain facts. Overall, this intends to avoid personal, social or other damage to individual actors.

In autoethnography, ethical rights also concern the researcher her/himself since displaying personal experiences opens up for vulnerability. Chang (2016, p. 448) advices researchers to “seriously consider the impact of their own exposure” before publication. My internship journey was indeed emotional, varyingly pleasant and disheartening, but compared to some autoethnographies (e.g. Comerford, 2019; Prasad, 2014) it does not concern a deeply personal experience, which should reduce the risk of own integrity damage. Of course, it up to the reader to reflect, also critically, on my story, including possible shortcomings and mistakes from my side.

The last two criteria, sociocultural analysis and interpretation, and scholarly contribution, will be fulfilled through the final parts where I discuss how this story contributes to USC research.

My story

Stage 1. Starting up (April–December, year 1)

In April, year 1, I am invited by Daniel, USC coordinator at my local university (LU), to join a national internship program (NIP) as one of four academics from this university. The idea is that the academic (“mover”) should work part-time at a host organisation for a 3-6-month period during “year 2” and have own workplace there. I feel very proud to have been asked, and thrilled about the opportunity to collaborate with external actors. Daniel conveys NIP guidelines, which among other things require the academic and the host to keep a diary during visits and participate in follow-up examinations. Daniel summons me and the other movers to a group interview that is audio-visually recorded. All these requirements seem somewhat overwhelming, but I am also impressed with the seriousness of the endeavour. The obligation to keep a diary prompts me to start the logbook.

Since my research interest lies on the management of human services, I believe that the County Council (CC) may be a potential host organisation for my internship. Daniel firstly contacts them and I then take over communication with Margareta, who is division manager at CC research and development unit. I present my background and sphere of competence, and immediately get a positive response.

In September, I meet with Margareta and four of her unit managers to present my proposition to use the internship for research on a CC undertaking of their choice. Being a bit anxious for the meeting, I have prepared well, but so have also the unit managers, each presenting a potential project for our collaboration. I am quite amazed with the reception. After further communication, we agree that I will follow a recently created project where a mobile team (MMT) staffed with doctor and nurse will provide home-based care to multiple-disabled adults in case of suddenly upcoming conditions. The intention is to avoid unnecessary hospital intake for this vulnerable target group; after the one-year project period, CC management will decide if the team should be permanently inaugurated or not. My task will be to follow and document the team's undertakings during the first half of the project period in order to assess the team's organisational design, external integration and patient outcome, to be presented in an evaluation report as foundation for the coming CC decision. In combination with this task, I will also have the opportunity to collect data for own research. Our agreement is based upon a written proposal I send to Margareta to which she consents.

I am very expectant:

Vignette. September, year 1. E-mail from me to Daniel:

My expectations on this collaboration is to work with something that is considered important and interesting for practice and that lies within my area of competence. I also expect to gain new insights on how certain parts of the health care system works. These insights might lead to new research ideas.

The MMT idea originated from one hospital manager, Beatrix, who is now project leader. During the autumn, I meet with Beatrix and the two team members, Doctor Ann and Nurse Doris, a couple of times to get insights on the project and to discuss my evaluation approach. These meetings contribute to raise my expectations:

Vignette. November, year 1. Notes from first meeting with team:

The doctor and I go through a draft template for documentation of house calls. I make some suggestions that are positively received.

Reflection: It feels good that they want to talk and listen to me!

Also on the second meeting with MMT, discussions seem promising and mutually fruitful. Here, a CC controller also participates, asking for my “expert opinion” on what data the team should register from their house calls. I am eager to been seen as useful for practice – not a guest from “the ivory tower” or a criticizing inspector! I had expected to also meet Beatrix to discuss my schedule for the internship starting in January next year, but she isn't there. I am thinking that I will have to draw up my own timetable.

Next, I participate in an information meeting that MMT holds for primary care (PC) actors. The team picks me up by car to go to a PC centre. During the meeting, I am able to sit on the side and take notes without anyone taking much notice of me. Afterwards in the car, Nurse Doris remarks to Dr. Ann that it would have been better if PC actors had been invited to participate earlier in the project process. I sense some frustration regarding project preparations.

These meetings allow me to better grasp the role of the team in the overall caretaking of the target group. As my intention is to also use the internship for own research, I begin to note potential research ideas; e.g. regarding the caring profession's perspective on collaboration.

According to NIP requirements, a formal contract must be signed between my university and the partner organisation. Daniel signals that this is an urgent matter and as soon as CC manager Margareta and I have agreed on collaboration, I inform him whom to contact at the host organisation. In October, and again in November, I remind Daniel about the contract but receive no response and begin to wonder why. Finally in December, Daniel e-mails that he has been occupied; now he will let the university lawyer draw up a contract. After that, I don’t hear from Daniel again.

Vignette. Re-reflection, year 3:

I still don’t know if any contract was ever signed.

Analytical summary, stage 1

The starting up phase is characterized by regular, yet not so frequent, interactions between myself and university and societal actors, respectively, for contact creation and planning. Key actors during this stage are the LU coordinator and, on the societal side, the CC manager, the project leader and the team members.

In regards to LU/NIP actors, early interactions construct two separate subject positions: on the one hand being chosen and proud to be invited to the internship program and, on the other hand, feeling directed as the process appears highly structured and controlled. Still, LU control (and interest) is later considerably relaxed, also changing my subject position to me being confused and feeling abandoned by a “disappearing” coordinator.

My first interactions with societal actors are promising; the project is interesting and key actors accept and value my presence; interactions thus manifest in two closely related subject positions: being accepted and being made an expert, feeling slightly ambivalent to the latter role. There is, however, some foreshadowing of a vague internship assignment.

When learning more about the project and the health care system surrounding it, yet another subject position emerges: researcher slightly moving in.

Stage 2. Engagement (January–April, year 2)

The engagement stage constitutes the actual internship period of four months from 1st January. During this period, there is no communication with university actors at all. I take no initiative to contact LU liaison office, and nobody contacts me. Actually, I am fully occupied with the internship and do not really bother; rather, it suits me fine to be more independent.

My interactions with county council and team actors are, on the other hand, intense through meetings, telephone calls and e-mail communication.

I call Dr. Ann to ask if I could join the team on their house calls for a couple of days to get a better understanding for their work. The team is currently situated in very narrow localities so Ann suggests that I participate when they have moved to a bigger office at the hospital. I reflect that she feels positive and accommodating.

In mid-February, I get to spend two full days with the team. Their “bigger” office turns out to be a crammed room furnished with desks for Ann and Doris and a tiny table for me. It is definitely not a workplace where I can spend my internship. So apart from these two days and team-related meetings, I fulfil the internship from my university office.

I find it very interesting to follow the team on their home visits. We travel by car and when entering the patient's home, the doctor goes first and introduces herself, followed by the nurse who does the same, and I come last. I usually stand in a corner and watch their work but may occasionally help out by lighting lamps etc. During car rides and breaks, we chat on both work-related and personal matters. In their office, I sit next to Dr. Ann and can follow her work on the computer screen:

Vignette: February, year 2. Notes from first day:

Back at the team’s office. Dr Ann sits down by the computer to enter prescriptions and to contact various people (doctors, nurses, others) with information, questions or instructions, and to register the house calls. Dr Ann shows me how slow the patient records system works.

Re-reflection, year 3: I was here a very passive observer, most of the time I did not even understand what I was looking at.

During this two-day visit, the team shares their thoughts with me, displaying both excitement about their work with the patients, and critique of project preparations.

On the other hand, project leader Beatrix is too busy with her ordinary job to engage herself much with the project, or with me. Thus, I independently plan the internship work.

As part of my evaluation of the MMT project, I perform a considerable number of interviews with CC actors. Beginning with the doctor, Ann describes that she was at first excited about working in the team to support multiple-disabled adults. After joining she was however frustrated with having to fix with many practical things such as developing work routines and procure medical equipment, before the team could start making house-calls. Half-way through the interview, Ann suddenly declares: “I have resigned from the team.” Apparently, the doctor and the project leader have quite fallen out. These are worrying news for the project and for my internship! On my question what would make her withdraw her resignation, Ann contends that she would like a more engaged project leader, and the conversation continues:

Vignette. February, year 2. Transcript from interview:

Me: Such a decision would require intervention from somebody higher up – Henry [head of primary care], or who is Beatrix’ boss?

Dr. Ann: Margareta is overall project owner.

Me: So the ball is really with her whether the project will continue?

Dr. Ann: Yes.

Me: Does she know about this [decision to quit]?

Dr. Ann: No. But maybe she ought to know.

Re-reflection year 4: Here, I suddenly took on a new role: receiving confidences. It felt like a sign of having gained a closer relationship with a key actor; but I was also a bit baffled with not recognizing this conflict before.

As this transcript displays, the bonds developed during the home-visit days dares me to engage in the conflict. Next, I interview Nurse Doris. She believes that the team's house calls work very well. She appreciates the collaboration with the doctor; should Ann leave, it is doubtful that Doris will stay. Doris also mentions that the team and Beatrix will meet with PC head Henry, to inquire about the team's future. She and the doctor “have overheard” that it has already been decided to make MMT permanent.

Vignette. Reflection after interview:

Peculiar to make the team permanent without evaluation or analysis or discussion with the team.

As I turns out, I am not invited to the team's meeting with Henry even though I am thinking this could have been relevant for my evaluation. The day after their meeting, in beginning of March, I contact the nurse regarding a patient survey, but without response. I now feel a bit outside and confused.

A couple of days later, Beatrix suddenly requests a telephone meeting to update me on the project. Henry has confirmed his intention to keep the team, but no official decision has been taken. The issue of Ann's resignation is not brought up until I mention it, to which Beatrix responds that the doctor wishes to be more closely involved in project management. Then I ask how she looks upon my work. She claims to appreciate it:

Vignette: March, year 2. Notes from telephone conversation:

Beatrix: It is very valuable with someone from the outside looking at our work, what patients and healthcare partners think. Not just us sitting and complaining. Your report will be an important foundation for Henry regardless of whether the project terminates with Dr. Ann or not.

Later the very same day, Doris comes by my office to deliver some patient surveys and we come to talk for quite a while. The meeting with Henry was “pointless”, she says; further, Dr. Ann is still dissatisfied and thinking of quitting. I suggest to Doris that they deliver their viewpoints to the appropriate person.

A few days later, I send a short summary of the patient survey to the team. I get a quick response:

Vignette. Mid-March, year 2. E-mail from Dr. Ann:

Thank you for the information. I talked to Margareta today. I think it was your idea. It felt good. She understood my points about project management and will see to that it improves. So I will stay.

Reflection: Maybe I have done some good after all!!

Here, I feel quite pleased with possibly having made a positive impact on the project's continuation, for the benefit of both the CC, the disabled – and myself.

Interactions during home visits and interviews concurrently spur new ideas for own research, e.g. regarding professional roles in home-based care, or methodological reflections on the “shadowing” method. Hoping to gain further input to future research, I choose add own research time to the NIP funded internship time. During March, I interview many nurses, managers and administrators in the surrounding healthcare system to inquire about their collaboration with the team. Most actors seem enthusiastic about the MMT idea. Some respondents take the opportunity to bring viewpoints back to the team such as suggested improvements. In a few instances, however, the respondent confidentially shares critique on team endeavours. Yet other actors had not heard about the project; I then have to explain to them about the MMT idea. Altogether, interactions with actors in the surrounding empirical field are multifaceted and place diverse demands on my evaluator/researcher role.

When interviewing Ola, manager at a primary care centre and head of MMT steering committee, he mentions that Henry, head of PC, intends to place MMT at Ola's PC centre; still, the project must firstly be evaluated: “it must show that the team has had a positive effect”; hence suggesting that the decision is still open.

I get the notion that participating in MMT steering committee meetings would be valuable and so I e-mail Beatrix to inquire about the next meeting. There is no answer. During a visit at Dr. Ann's and Nurse Doris' modest office, they however invite me to the next meeting; this proves to be an interesting occasion.

Vignette. Early April, year 2. Notes from MMT steering committee meeting:

Participants when meeting starts: Margareta, Ola, Beatrix, Ann, Doris, myself.

Beatrix unexpectedly asks about my report. I describe my data collection activities […] and try to think up some preliminary findings. [---]

Beatrix informs that MMT will formally be organized under Ola’s PC centre but physically remain in their current localities during the project period.

Discussions commence regarding staffing of MMT during Summer.

Reflection after the meeting: I get the feeling that they aim for a mediocre solution instead of rethinking all parts: staff dependency, scope, target group. Bring up in report! Feels ad-hoc.

More persons join the meeting: a hospital coordinator and the local authority disability care manager, Ron. The remainder of the meeting addresses MMT collaboration with the local authority, which is a key issue during the entire project period. After the meeting, I join CC actors in the car ride back to the university and hospital area. Margareta says she looks forward to my report. I am pleased with being allowed to participate in official project meetings. On the other hand, I have become a bit apprehensive regarding the county council's intentions to actually consider my conclusions:

Vignette. Reflection after the meeting:

I seriously believe that they will ignore my report if it doesn’t say what they already want to do; but if it does, they can use it to legitimize [what they have already intended to do].

My interviews with actors in the empirical field generally progress satisfactory, with the exception of actors in primary care. I spend considerable time trying to gain access. Since primary care has chief medical responsibility for disabled patients, MMT collaboration with PC is vital; yet, there are signals that this collaboration is not functioning well. But when contacting primary care for interviews, I meet a dismissing attitude – not sure if this depends on my affiliation with MMT or their strained work situation.

With the exception of this drawback, I find it very interesting and engaging to meet the actors in the healthcare system surrounding MMT and listen to their stories. The expanding load of empirical material feels promising but also somewhat overwhelming: how proceed with all this? There are many possible routes to take in future research, I think.

My final interview is with project leader Beatrix. She takes the opportunity to thoroughly explain the arduous project start with resistance from primary care, perhaps to counter possible critique in my evaluation report. Moreover, she argues that the team has good political support and that the key issue is not whether to make the team permanent, but how to design it. Actually, local authority disability services staff are very positive towards MMT: to verify this Beatrix reads aloud from an e-mail praising the team's support to disabled patients. This interview provides insights into what the project leader, apparently, expects from my evaluation report.

In late April, I eventually find out date, time and place to the next steering committee meeting from Ann and Doris. After checking with Beatrix, they say it is ok that I go with them to the meeting, which I appreciate. Nevertheless, I also feel a bit awkward:

Vignette. Late April, year 2. Reflection during steering committee meeting:

I did not get the call to the meeting, or notes from the last one. Again: Am I in or am I out?

The meeting summons the same persons as the previous one except for Margareta. Beatrix goes through the memorandum from last meeting, which the others seem to have received. Next, she explains that she and local authority manager Ron have agreed to form a joint group to handle all collaboration between the county council and the local authority. Therefore the MMT steering committee will be dissolved. Apparently, this is the last meeting in the committee, which makes me quite concerned.

Beatrix suddenly turns to me and asks: “Has Joline contacted you yet?” I am perplexed as it turns out that Joline is a CC communicator who will “package my report for politicians”, which I find quite worrying:

Vignette. Reflection during the meeting:

This is MY report!

Without MMT steering committee – where should I present my report?

This, somewhat discouraging, meeting rounds off my interactions with CC actors during the internship period.

Analytical summary, stage 2

The engagement stage of this collaboration process is indeed multifaceted, involving intense interactions with societal actors. Key actors during this phase are the project leader and team members (Beatrix, Ann and Doris) as well as CC managers Margareta and Henry; even though I do not have any personal interactions with Henry, he is still an important player behind the scenes.

Actually, interactions with CC actors form a volatile path, shifting between excitement and involvement vs disappointment and exclusion. Initially close contacts with the team result in the subject position of being involved in team undertakings, later followed by being trusted with confidences on internal controversies. Concurrently, however, I am also being overlooked, in particular in relation to the project leader. Furthermore, these subject positions prompt me to taking sides in an internal conflict; notwithstanding this may be advantageous for the continuation of the project, it somewhat collides with my allegedly neutral evaluator role.

Interactions with actors in the surrounding health care system allow me to learn both for the evaluation of MMT and to generate new research ideas. These interactions spur several research-related subject positions such as being trusted, and having confidences. Yet, some of these interactions push me to become either a spokesperson (for the team) or a channel to convey certain messages (to the team). Unfortunately enough, I am unable to establish contact with some key actors, hence as evaluator and researcher I am being rejected.

During the end of the engagement stage, other subject positions are imposed upon me in my interactions with MMT/CC actors. For one thing, I am still not formally invited to official meetings, hence being neglected. At the same time, however, I also receive expectations for a positive evaluation of MMT, which incites the subject position of loosing independence, even being pressured to resign control over the presentation of my report.

Unexpectedly enough, I have no interactions with LU/NIP actors at all during the engagement stage, meaning that the academic control of the collaboration arrangement is considerably relaxed, as also the potential support. This evokes a very special subject position of being deserted – and free.

Stage 3. Aftermath (May, year 2 – onwards)

The formal internship period is now over. During late spring and summer, I focus on report writing to fulfil my internship task.

In the beginning of May – after four months of mutual silence–I suddenly receive an e-mail from my university's liaison office. Noah, head of office, invites local “movers” to a follow-up meeting. I find it quite interesting to share experiences with the other movers. Noah takes notes for a summary to the national NIP report; neither the summary nor the NIP report is distributed to us movers.

Nobody asks for my diary; I am thinking this is just as well, considering all details on interactions and experiences that I have entered!

In Mid-June, I meet with the team to check some facts for my report. Beatrix says PC head Henry is awaiting the report as foundation for his decision on MMT. She thinks he ought to invite me to a PC management meeting to present my report. Beatrix will send me a mailing list of those officials and politicians who should get the report. A few days later, however, she e-mails that I should only send the report to Henry. This makes me I wonder if the report will be “buried” if not receiving his approval.

I finalize my MMT report at the end of June. It is a mainly positive evaluation of the team's potential to increase health and quality of life for multiple-disabled adults. In the conclusions I highlight two issues that need to be addressed in order for the team to function well: better delimitation of the target group, and an elevated team model that is jointly run by primary care and local authority disability care.

Notwithstanding Beatrix’ instructions, I e-mail the report not only to Henry but also to the team and all (previous) steering committee members. I also express appreciation for our collaboration, propose to present the report on suitable meetings and point out my interest to further follow the process. Beatrix calls me up to say the report is great: “It warms my heart”. There is no response from Henry, but Margareta, my initial CC contact, gets back:

Vignette. July, year 2. E-mail from Margareta:

Thank you for the report. Interesting reading. Looking forward to future collaboration of some sort.

This feedback raises my expectation on continued contacts with the county council.

In parallel, CC communicator Joline contacts me to explain that she will design a presentation to show the “project's success” – which I find quite odd:

Vignette. June, year 2. Reflection after telephone call from Joline:

At first, I did not get this at all … I tried to emphasize that this is an independent evaluation based on research.

Later in June, Joline informs that she will prepare slides to “visualize the benefits of MMT” for Beatrix’ and Henry's coming presentation to PC managers. It worries me that they seem to be presenting the report without me:

Vignette. Mid-July, year 2. Extract from logbook:

Joline sends slides. I convey viewpoints.

Telephone conversation with Joline, late August:

Beatrix wants to present my report at PC management meeting at 2.00 pm today. I say the presentation is ok.

Reflection: It feels awkward that I am not there when the report is presented. I must call Beatrix next week to inquire how the presentation went, and what is the next step.

At this point, I feel as if both my report and my presentation of it have been hijacked. I try to contact Beatrix after the meeting, and finally reaches her in mid-September. Apparently, the slideshow didn’t work, and the reception from PC participants was “so-so”; altogether, Beatrix’ enthusiasm seems curbed. Next, she will present the report for CC Board of directors. She asks if I am interested to follow the further course of events, to which I eagerly consent. She will get back to me after the board meeting.

In October, I respond to a NIP national online survey regarding my experiences. I convey some critique on the local management of the collaboration arrangement. I also suggest further LU/NIP support to uphold established relationships with partner organisations. Later, I accidently find out that LU administrators were invited to a national NIP conference; this invitation was not passed on to movers.

In relation to county council actors, I still wish to uphold relationships for own research purposes. Beatrix does not get back to me after the CC board meeting and I am disappointed not hearing about the politicians' reactions on the MMT report or their decision on the team's future. Still, other assignments require my attention, so it takes time before I resume contact:

Vignette. February, year 3. E-mail to Beatrix:

What is happening with MMT? Will the team be permanent?

No response.

I look for protocols on CC webpage. MMT has not been on the agenda of the political council. I then try to reach the team directly:

Vignette. Mid-March, year 3. E-mail to Dr Ann:

Is the team still existing? Please get back to me if possible.

Dr. Ann: The team has been made permanent but otherwise much remains to be desired. I will not stay.

Me: Thank you for your response! Will Nurse Doris stay on? Could we meet?

No response.

As last attempt, I e-mail to Ola, former head of CC steering committee; he immediately responds and we have a brief telephone conversation where he explains that MMT is now under his PC centre. He says that Dr. Ann disagreed on the team's current work methods and will be replaced with another doctor. Apparently, the chosen team design has very little in common with the one I suggested. Ola doesn’t know how the decision to make the team permanent was made and refers me to Beatrix.

Later during year 3, I begin to reflect more systematically on my experiences. I visit the NIP public website where I find a lot of documentation, also a set of initial instructions:

Vignette. Guidelines for internships [extract]:

- The host organisation should assign resources for a mentor and possible internal training.

- During the internship, there should be a close dialogue between the university and the partner organization.

- The researcher should be an active “co-worker” and have a physical work place in order to be present and actively participate in the work.

Evidently, neither of the above requirements were fulfilled in my case, or checked by LU actors.

Analytical summary, stage 3

The aftermath stage initially involves encouraging interactions with key societal actors in terms of project leader, team members and CC manager Margareta, hence constructing an esteemed evaluator. When I am not allowed to present the report, or hear about how the presentation went, my subject position instead becomes excluded evaluator. Thereafter, interactions tend to fade out despite my contact attempts, driving me into the subject position as ignored evaluator.

My internship is indeed finalized as planned; yet it is doubtful whether it had any imprint on the team's future. Furthermore, I am not able to uphold contact with the empirical field for own research. Overall, I become both disappearing researcher, possibly also being deterred from future collaboration with society.

On the other hand, there is some recovery in relationships with actors from academia during the aftermath stage, initiated by LU actors to fulfil NIP follow-up requirements. As I see it, however, these interactions do not signal any serious intention to consider movers' viewpoints or support long-term collaboration with society, thereby making me feel as a small pawn in a strategic USC game.

Discussion

The story presented above is indeed my story; as such, particular and unique. Nevertheless, I will now pick up and theoretically elevate some key points from the story, in line with the analytical ambition of this autoethnography.

If firstly discussing my motivation to join the internship program, I can definitely agree with some of the motivations that academics before me have pointed out (in Butler et al., 2015), namely to have an impact on the partner organisation and to develop own research ideas. On the other hand, these expectations were not really fulfilled in my case, creating a clash between motivations and outcomes. Material rewards were not relevant in this collaboration endeavour. To feel proud and good about my-self was hardly a deliberate intention, yet when I felt neglected, excluded and ignored, this hurt my self-esteem. This illustrates that motivations may be more or less conscious, and surface or descend depending on the path of the collaboration process.

Relating this collaboration arrangement to extant categorizations, it seems as if several categories are fitting. For one thing, it qualifies as a “research service” (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007) since the societal partner set the objectives for my internship. Simultaneously, however, my expectation was to develop insights to also further academic knowledge, thus the category “research partnership” seems relevant. Actually, the set-up involved elements of both a “formal targeted agreement” and a “personal formal relationship” (Ankrah and AL-Tabbaa, 2015). These conceptual overlaps show the limited value of fixed categorizations to capture the complexity of collaboration arrangements and confirm the relevance to move beyond the static view in traditional USC literature.

Rather, a processual approach should be fruitful to further USC research. Some process studies portray collaboration as predetermined steps whereas this paper, notwithstanding temporally demarcating the process into three stages, has applied an emergent and open-ended approach. In particular, narrating the process autoethnographically revealed a multitude of actors involved in collaboration, from both the academic and the societal side. Most USC literature envisages collaboration as a two-party interaction – academia vs external partner. Even though Baraldi et al. (2016) made a distinction between university administrators and researchers, hence acknowledging that the university is not one homogenous actor, they made no similar division on the industry side. In my story, interactions between myself and various actors on both sides formed the collaboration process. Also interactions among societal actors on different levels and health care units reflected upon the process, for instance in terms of ongoing tensions between the team and primary care, or the internal rift in the project team.

Mosleh (in Mosleh and Larsen, 2020) had a related experience regarding the consequences of internal relations among field actors. She found herself caught in an internal disagreement between two key actors in the partner organisation, and occasionally felt exploited for their respective interests. However, the key outcome from Mosleh and Larsen (2020) concerns methodological advice to ethnographic researchers whereas my contribution is framed within the context of university–society collaboration literature.

Empson (2013) also conducted an autoethnographic study of an academic's engagement with society; yet the key matter for her was a felt clash between the academic vs the practitioner world resulting in troublesome identity work. This resonates with other research on academics' experiences of collaboration as involving a liminal position between university vs societal expectations (e.g. Butler et al., 2015; Czarniawska and Mazza, 2003; Gilmore and Kenny, 2015). For me, however, liminality was not a main concern. Instead, my story highlights how interaction dynamics and emergent subject positions form a power-laden collaboration process.

My story illustrates that classifying the academic's position in terms of fixed roles, such as “expert”, “bridge builder” or “negotiator” (e.g. Bastuscheck, 1996; Czarniawska and Mazza, 2003; Jacobson et al., 2005) fails to capture the dynamics and complexity of the process. This paper has applied a relational view on power that proved useful in uncovering my situation in terms of continuously constructed subject positions, inherently multiple, unstable, and ambiguous. Previous research in other fields has shown how subject positions contribute to uncover power dynamics among actors (e.g. Harklau and Norwood, 2005; Splitter et al., 2021); to apply this perspective on university–society collaboration is however quite original.

In order to enter more deeply into the power dynamics of the collaboration process, I will now relate the experienced subject positions both to the process and to my reactions towards them. Table 1 shows the three process stages and my valuation of subject positions as being positive, negative or ambiguous.

Some positions such as being trusted and involved were, obviously, from my point very positive and encouraging; hence embraced. On the other hand, being neglected and rejected were negative subject positions evoking my (usually silent) resistance; still, I often felt compelled to surrender to the power exercised by other actors. Yet other subject positions were rather ambiguous such as being confused or losing independence; my reaction here was mainly one of acceptance.

Indeed, some subject positions were mutually supportive, such as when being trusted by team actors made me take sides and lose independence. Yet other subject positions appear inconsistent, such as when being involved and neglected, esteemed and ignored by the same set of actors.

It should be pointed out that I was certainly not a passive recipient of subjectifications imposed on me. On the contrary, I was probably active in co-constructing most subject positions, for instance in answering to expectations of providing “expert” opinions or treating confidences with sympathy. The negative subject positions, however, were often an outcome of absent communication in situations where I sought but could not uphold interaction; here, I felt less ability to influence my position.

Overall, the analysis of my story has revealed an unpredictable and volatile journey where I find myself bouncing between excitement and disappointment, confidence and confusion, inclusion and exclusion. Table 1, obviously, simplifies a complex process yet illuminates interesting patterns. For one thing, there was a movement from initial subject positions being mainly positive, or slightly ambiguous, to a broad set of subject positions during the engagement stage. Here, the roller coaster journey was moving at particular speed between being trusted, involved and having confidences to being neglected, overlooked and rejected, and occasionally excursing to indeterminate positions as spokesperson, channel or being deserted (and free). The journey ends, however, “at the bottom” of the roller coaster with only one, quickly disappearing, positive subject position as esteemed evaluator whereas being excluded, ignored and deterred retrospectively casts a gloomy shadow over the process.

Contributions

The autoethnographic approach applied in this study proved as a fruitful, even necessary, method to understand collaboration from the individual academic's perspective with a particular focus on the dynamic and power-laden nature of collaboration. These are the main contributions:

As promised, this paper provides evidence of how, from an academic's point of view, initial motivations and ambitions play out and eventually result in both positive and negative outcomes; some of which were indeed unexpected. Notwithstanding the current USC arrangement was relatively limited in scope and duration, it became a wobbly journey bouncing between excitement and disappointment, inclusion and exclusion, confidence and confusion. These revelations of the complex and unpredictable character of collaboration provide a unique empirical contribution to extant literature, also in line with my initial critique against the static and functionalistic view on collaboration.

In order to understand the foundations for this process, focusing upon continuous interactions with a multitude of academic and societal actors was particularly useful. Apparently, those interactions contribute to shape the emerging process, and result in the construction of multiple subject positions. I encountered shifting, often unforeseen or inconsistent subject positions; sometimes welcomed; at other times confusing or adverse. In comparison to extant USC literature that overlooks power dynamics, this aspect was indeed highlighted in my story.

As main conclusion for the research question “How could we understand collaboration as a dynamic and power-laden process if seen from the individual academic's point of view?” I propose the following: firstly, collaboration arrangements include several categories of actors on both sides, each having their specific interests and power positions; thus, it is not sufficient to view USC as a well-defined two-party engagement. Moreover, power relationships among these actors have considerable impact upon the unfolding collaboration process. Thirdly, interactions contribute to shape the academic's role in terms of emerging, multiple, and ambiguous subject positions; these positions could be mutually supportive, inconsistent, or conflicting. Notwithstanding the academic is an active part in shaping subject positions, these could to varying degree be embraced, accepted, resisted, or surrendered to by the academic.

Finally, some conclusions for academic practice. For the novice academic, interested in engaging in collaboration, do not let my story discourage you! In spite of the disappointing end, I had many inspiring and authentic interactions with societal actors. Still, it seems advisable to be sensitive of power relations during collaboration, and aware of the possibility of varying interests among actors. For the academic reader with own experiences from collaboration, my story may help to shed new light on those experiences notwithstanding circumstances differ. For university administrators managing USC, a recommendation would be to not solely purport the promising and positive aspects of collaboration; instead, involved parties should do well to openly discuss potential problems, and how to handle those, beforehand. Pre-planned check-up points during the process might also be useful.

A final reflection: when joining this internship program, I was eager to be useful for practice and get inspiration for own research. Whereas the first expectation was not realized, there was indeed a research outcome, yet not within the human services field. Instead, the internship pushed me to engage in the topical matter of academia's role in society. Indeed, I seem to have followed Cyert and Goodman's (1997) advice to utilize collaboration experiences as an opportunity to learn – and not only about anticipated issues.

Experienced subject positions during the collaboration process

StageInteractions withPositive subject positions – embracedAmbiguous subject positions – acceptedNegative subject positions – resisted; or surrendered to
Starting-upAcademic actorsBeing chosen and proudFeeling directed
Being confused
Societal actors (CC/MMT)Being accepted
Researcher slightly moving in
Made an expert
EngagementAcademic actorsBeing deserted and free
Societal actors (CC/MMT)Being involved
Being trusted
Taking sides
Loosing independence
Being overlooked
Being neglected
Being pressured
Societal actors (surrounding empirical field)Researcher being trusted. Having confidencesBeing spokesperson
Being used as a channel
Researcher being rejected
AftermathAcademic actorsA pawn in a strategic game
Societal actors (CC/MMT)Esteemed evaluatorExcluded evaluator
Ignored evaluator
Being deterred
Societal actors (emp. field)Disappearing researcher

References

Ankrah, S. and AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015), “Universities–industry collaboration: a systematic review”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-408.

Autto, J.M. and Törrönen, J. (2016), “Justification of citizens' subject positions in public debate on welfare”, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 61-73.

Bacevic, J. (2017), “Beyond the third mission: toward an actor-based account of universities' relationships with society”, in Ergül, H. and Cosar, S. (Eds), Universities in the Neoliberal Era. Academic Cultures and Critical Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 21-40.

Baraldi, E., Lindahl, M. and Severinsson, K. (2016), “A proactive approach to the utilization of academic research: the case of Uppsala University's AIMday”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 613-621.

Bastuscheck, J. (1996), “Faculty roles in university related research parks”, dissertation, The Graduate School College of Education, Pennsylvania State University.

Benneworth, P., de Boer, H. and Jongbloed, B. (2015), “Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: institutionalizing the universities' third mission in the Swedish context”, European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 280-296.

Bertilsson Forsberg, P. (2018), “Collaboration in practice. A multiple case study on collaboration between small companies and university researchers”, dissertation, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology, Uppsala University.

Bölling, M. and Eriksson, Y. (2016), “Collaboration with society: the future role of universities? Identifying challenges for evaluation”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 209-218.

Bowen, S., Botting, I., Graham, I.D. and Huebner, L.-A. (2017), “Beyond ‘Two cultures’: guidance for establishing effective researcher/health system partnerships”, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-42.

Bryman, A. and Buchanan, D. (2018), Unconventional Methodology in Organization and Management Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Butler, N., Delaney, H. and Spoelstra, S. (2015), “Problematizing ‘Relevance’ in the business school: the case of leadership studies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 731-744.

Ceglowski, D. (2000), “Research as relationships”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 88-103.

Chang, H. (2016), “Autoethnography in health research: growing pains?”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 443-451.

Comerford, S.A. (2019), “An autoethnography of a neurotypical adoptive mother's journey through adoption into the world(s) of intellectual variety in the yearly years of the U.S. education system”, Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 772-776.

Compagnucci, L. and Spigarelli, F. (2020), “The third mission of the university: a systematic literature review on potentials and constraints”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 161 No. 120284, pp. 1-30.

Cunliffe, A. (2018), “Alterity: the passion, politics, and ethics of self and scholarship”, Management Learning, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 8-22.

Cyert, R.M. and Goodman, P.S. (1997), “Creating effective university-industry alliances: an organizational learning perspective”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 45-57.

Czarniawska, B. and Mazza, C. (2003), “Consulting as liminal space”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 267-290.

Dagg, J. and Haugaard, M. (2016), “The performance of subject positions, power, and identity: a case of refugee recognition”, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 392-425.

de Gama, N., Elias, S. and Peticca-Harris, A. (2019), “The good academic: re-imagining good research in organization and management studies”, Qualitative Research in Organization and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-9.

D'Este, P. and Perkmann, M. (2011), “Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 316-339.

Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2006), “Analyzing analytic autoethnography: an autopsy”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 429-449.

Ellis, C., Adams, T.E. and Bochner, A.P. (2011), “Autoethnography: an overview”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, Art. 10.

Empson, L. (2013), “My affair with the ‘other’: identity journeys across the research–practice divide”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 229-248.

Gilmore, S. and Kenny, K. (2015), “Work-worlds colliding: self-reflexivity, power and emotion in organizational ethnography”, Human Relations, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 55-78.

Giorgio, G.A. (2013), “Reflections on writing through memory in autoethnography”, in Holman Jones, S., Adams, T.E. and Ellis, C. (Eds), Handbook of Autoethnography, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 406-424.

Harklau, L. and Norwood, R. (2005), “Negotiating evaluator roles in ethnographic program evaluation: a postmodern lens”, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 278-288.

Haynes, K. (2011), “Tensions in (re)presenting the self in reflexive autoethnographical research”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 134-149.

Holman Jones, S., Adams, Tony E. and Ellis, C. (2013), Handbook of Autoethnography, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Huopalainen, A. and Satama, S. (2019), “Mothers and researchers in the making: negotiating ‘new’ motherhood within the ‘new’ academia”, Human Relations, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 98-121.

Jacobson, N., Butterill, D. and Goering, P. (2005), “Consulting as a strategy for knowledge transfer”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 299-321.

Ladkin, D. and Probert, J. (2021), “From sovereign to subject: applying Foucault's conceptualization of power to leading and studying power within leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 101310, pp. 1-12.

Le Roux, C.S. (2017), “Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-207.

Medford, K. (2006), “Caught with a fake ID. Ethical questions about slippage in autoethnography”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 853-864.

Mitton, C., Adair, C.E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S.B. and Waye Perry, B. (2007), “Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and Synthesis of the literature”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 729-768.

Mosleh, W.S. and Larsen, H. (2020), “Fieldworking the relational complexity of organizations”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 421-439.

Orr, K. and Bennett, M. (2012a), “Down and out at the British library and other dens of co-production”, Management Learning, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 427-442.

Orr, K. and Bennett, M. (2012b), “Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic-practitioner research”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 487-496.

Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007), “University-industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 259-280.

Pinheiro, R., Langa, P.V. and Pausits, A. (2015), “The institutionalization of universities' third mission: introduction to the special issue”, European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 227-232.

Prasad, A. (2014), “You can't go home again: and other psychoanalytic lessons from crossing a neo-colonial border”, Human Relations, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 233-257.

Sliwa, M. and Kellard, N. (2021), The Research Impact Agenda. Navigating the Impact of Impact, Routledge, London.

Splitter, V., Jarzabkowski, P. and Seidl, D. (2021), “Middle managers’ struggle over their subject position in open strategy process”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 58, doi: 10.1111/joms.12776.

Tullis, J.A. (2013), “Self and others. Ethics in autoethnographic research”, in Holman Jones, S., Adams, T.E. and Ellis, C. (Eds), Handbook of Autoethnography, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 244-261.

Winkler, I. (2014), “Being me whilst learning Danish. A story of narrative identity work during the process of learning a foreign language”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 290-307.

Winkler, I. (2018), “Doing autoethnography: facing challenges, taking choices, accepting responsibilities”, Qualitive Inquiry, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 236-247.

Worthman, C. and Troiano, B. (2019), “A good student subject: a Foucauldian discourse analysis of an adolescent writer negotiating subject positions”, Critical Studies in Education, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 263-280.

Corresponding author

Ulrica Nylén can be contacted at: ulrica.nylen@umu.se

Related articles