Search results

Reality breakdowns generate reflexivity and awareness of the constructed nature of social reality. These pivotal moments can motivate institutional inhabitants to either modify their social worlds or reaffirm the status quo. Thus, reality breakdowns are the initial points at which actors can conceive of new possibilities for institutional arrangements and initiate change processes to realize them. Studying reality breakdowns enables scholars to understand not just how institutional change occurs, but also why it does or does not do so. In this paper, we investigate how institutional inhabitants responded to a reality breakdown that occurred during our ethnography of collegial governance in a large North American university that was undergoing a strategic change initiative. Our findings suggest that there is a consequential process following reality breakdowns whereby institutional inhabitants construct the severity of these events. In our context, institutional inhabitants first attempted to restore order to their social world by reaffirming the status quo; when their efforts failed, they began to formulate alternative possibilities. Simultaneously, they engaged in a distributed sensemaking process whereby they diminished and reoriented necessary changes, ultimately inhibiting the formulation of these new possibilities. Our findings confirm reality breakdowns and institutional awareness as potential drivers of institutional change and complicate our understanding of antecedent microprocesses that may forestall the initiation of change efforts.

Curiosity is one of the main drivers in reaching out and connecting to colleagues and starting the networking – that is the foundation for establishing an association for Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs). The questions, ‘Why, what, how and when’, with a commitment to drive things forward, together with like-minded people, can transform curiosity into joint actions and movement of a network. While a number of success factors can be identified, alas there is no thorough literature describing how such factors interact or why. Even though all parameters are met, some associations still struggle with moving forward.

Recognising the identity as a research manager and administrator on the individual level enables reaching out to colleagues in the field, in and outside the institution, and nationally as well as abroad. Understanding the institutional environment and the structure of research support is the starting point for reaching out to colleagues.

This chapter will give an overview of the creation process of RMA associations, spanning from the rise of professional networks, as an informal organisation, to the establishment of legal entities, and hence a more formal association. It hopes to provide a meaningful discussion on the process of establishing professional associations despite the scarce literature on the topic (Stolle, 1998).

This paper examines the theoretical issues and research themes of business and management impact. Our empirical setting is the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF 2014) and the focus is on the nature of research impact. Stakeholders, including Governments, now expect academic outputs to translate to real world benefits beyond the narrow bibliometric type metrics.

Despite decades of academic literature devoted to business and management research impact, current theories cannot explain the apparent disconnect between academic, economic and societal practice. Adopting a UK Business and Management perspective to frame our investigation, we consider the highly contested rhetorical question – What are the current themes and impacts of Business and Management research?

We propose a definition for research impact and consider its measurement. Then, using the 410 Impact Case Studies submitted to REF 2014 #x2013; Unit of Assessment 19, business and management, we examine how high impact unfolds. The implications for business and management research impact from the perspectives of economic, knowledge and responsibility impacts are considered.

The aim of this chapter is to describe a four-type model of organisational structures and to discuss two cases, Embrapa and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, as well as additional cases at SAM-Research and the centre for shared medical support services established at the University of Bologna.

These cases should help readers understand the importance of designing distinctive, tailored-made support services while keeping these structures flexible for further adaptation under unforeseen changes.

The chapter concludes by stressing the role of institutions to steadily invest in the design of these tailored support structures and in personalised training for their support staff.