Search results

Research in business processes has been developed around a disciplinary approach toward the production of traditional knowledge, known as Mode 1. The problems studied with this approach are solved in a context in which academic knowledge prevails, with no major concerns regarding its practical applicability. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to propose a structure for knowledge production based on Mode 2 for business process researches.

A bibliometric research was conducted to define and conceptualize the classes of disciplinary problems, by assessing the years 2007-2012 of the Business Process Management Journal publications.

A framework for the Mode 2 knowledge production was proposed in the development of research in business process and conceptualized classes of problems related to this issue.

This work was carried out with specific focus on research in business process, so the defined classes of problems cannot be generalized.

The studies identified by this research are in the form of a disciplinary approach toward the production of traditional knowledge, known as Mode 1. This paper aims to fill the gap of a transdisciplinary production of knowledge and practical application, known as Mode 2 in the context of business process.

In this paper, we present and apply a new framework – the Poles of Production for Producers/Poles of Production for Users (PFP/PFU) model – to empirically study how one particular group of academic scientists has responded to neoliberal changes in science policy and funding in Canada. The data we use are from a qualitative case study of 20 basic health scientists affiliated with a research-intensive university in a large Canadian city. We use the PFP/PFU model to explore the symbolic strategies (the vision of scientific quality) and practical strategies (the acquisition of funding and production of knowledge outputs) scientists adopt to maintain or advance their own position of power in the scientific field. We also compare similarities and differences among scientists trained before and after the rise of neoliberal policy. The PFP/PFU model allows us to see how these individual strategies cumulatively contribute to the construction of dominant and alternate modes of knowledge production. We argue that the alignments and misalignments between quality vision and practice that scientists in this study experienced reflect the symbolic struggles that are occurring among scientists, and between the scientific and political field, over two competing logics and reward systems (PFP/PFU).

To explore, describe and explain what processes are at work in facilitating or inhibiting entrepreneurship amongst academics.

A corporate entrepreneurship perspective is used to construct a framework for understanding academic entrepreneurship at different ontological levels within a university context. A single case study method is adopted involving a purposeful sampling strategy of academic entrepreneurs within one university. A sense‐making approach investigated the practice of entrepreneurship by academics.

Develops a tentative framework for bounding the phenomenon of academic entrepreneurship and presents a model that attempts to identify key elements of academic entrepreneurship in terms of different modes of knowledge production and value‐creating processes.

The single case setting limits the applicability of the research to other institutions. However, the framework and model that are developed and the overall approach are valuable contributions to an important, emerging research area. The academic entrepreneurship framework provides a series of logically related conceptual bins that form a basis for future research. The model of academic entrepreneurship attempts to explain how academics produce different types of knowledge.

The paper suggests that academic entrepreneurs have a complex set of relationships with their parent disciplines and the university setting within which they operate. The outcomes indicate that orthodox models of entrepreneurship are not always meaningful as regards understanding what academic entrepreneurs actually do in practice.

The paper investigates a little‐understood phenomenon and one that is increasingly important for UK policy makers and university administrators. The academic entrepreneurship framework and model is an original and valuable contribution to the study of this phenomenon.

This paper seeks to address the importance of knowledge production and capabilities for the construction industry; and the implications of the challenges associated with their effective exploitation for the construction industry in China.

A thorough review of extant literature and 31 detailed semi‐structured interviews with practitioners from 14 large, medium and small organisations in the UK construction industry. Content analysis was adopted as the analytical approach.

The main triggers of knowledge production in the construction industry are: the need to effectively deal with complex projects; the effective use of new, innovative building materials, systems, services; managing change (both project change and organisational change); coping with the uniqueness of projects; and managing team member interfaces (e.g. consultant‐contractor). Knowledge production is a complex process which can occur through a number of ways (e.g. formal research, reflective practice, transformation and combination of existing knowledge). Organisational culture influences knowledge production both positively and negatively.

This paper addresses the main ways in which knowledge production can benefit construction organisations and can impact positively to organisational innovations. It addresses the role of leadership and culture in knowledge production in organisations. Skilled and competent workforce is key in knowledge production, especially in addressing problem‐solving situations. Appropriate and focused training programmes (e.g. continuing professional development events, other short courses, in‐house programmes‐mentoring, coaching, and job rotation) are important in stimulating approaches for improved knowledge production in organisations. As shortages of skilled personnel are rife in construction in China, organisations need to take the issue of knowledge production more seriously.

The “relevance literature” often moans that the publications of top-ranked academic journals are hardly relevant to managers, while actionable research struggles to get published. The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon.

This paper addresses the relevance debate in management science through the theoretical frame of the theories of the firm.

This paper proposes that business organizations should tend to internalize specific applied research. Applied to management research, this could explain why the “market” for academic publications might be more relevant for generalizable and conceptual research than for applied, contextualized research.

The paper is conceptual. However, it provides a new prospect to the rigor-relevance debate and to the ranking of researchers and business schools.

Business organizations should tend to internalize specific, applied research. Consequently, academic publications should concentrate on generalizable, “Mode 1” research.

The conclusions could justify the evolution of the rating of universities and researchers towards a multi-dimensional rating, including measures of the socio-economic impact of the research, instead on focusing on academic publications only.

This paper offers a new point of view on the rigor-relevance debate. It supports the idea that applied and conceptual research are different forms of knowledge and should be “traded”, produced and rewarded differently.

This study aims to evaluate the potential of using the components of the quadruple helix and quintuple helix models, which are extensions of the triple helix university-private sector-public sector cooperation model. Thus, the triple helix model shaped by university-private-public sector cooperation has transformed into a quadruple helix innovation model with the inclusion of the media and culture-oriented public helix. In this context, while the triple helix emphasizes tripartite networks and hybrid organizations, the quadruple helix system focuses on intertwined collaborations, coevolution, and specialization within the framework of firms, institutions, and stakeholders. In the quadruple helix innovation system, the coevolution of art and innovation has assumed a central role in knowledge generation and innovation. In the quintuple helix innovation model, the natural environment of society is added to the quadruple helix. This study consists of three parts. In the first part, the literature on triple helix, quadruple helix, and quintuple helix models is reviewed. In the second part, digital transformation and technological innovations from Industrial Revolution 1.0 to Industry 5.0 are analyzed. In the third section, the contribution of the quintuple helix model to Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 is explained.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.

This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.

In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.

This paper proposes to rethink the concepts of relevance and usefulness and their relation to the theory–practice gap in management research.

On the basis of the cognitive-linguistic relevance theory or inferential pragmatics, supplemented by insights from information science, we define relevance as a general conceptual category, while reserving usefulness for the instrumental application in a particular case.

There is no reason to hold onto the difference between theoretical and practical relevance, nor to distinguish between instrumental and conceptual relevance.

This novel approach will help to clarify the confusion in the field and contribute to a better understanding of the added value of management research.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners. It does so by comparing the various models of academic-practitioner collaboration and introducing Dewey’s democratic experimentalism as a promising alternative.

The conceptual implications are drawn from an analysis and discussion of the literatures in the field of organizational knowledge production, co-production and Deweyan studies.

Democratic experimentalism offers a much needed platform for a collaborative relationship between academics and practitioners that leads to knowledge that is rigorous and relevant to practice.

While the current models of academic-practitioner collaboration provide mechanisms for knowledge co-production, the Dewey’s democratic experimentalism goes further to emphasize the nature of the relationship between academics and practitioners in such common endeavor to ensure that all of them are equal co-creators of knowledge.