Search results

The purpose of the research is to study the set‐up processes of formal networks in a multinational high‐tech corporation consisting of multiple business units. The aim is to learn more about what management can do in order to support the fragile process of setting up new knowledge networks.

The research project had a problem‐solving approach, which is why action research was selected as the method.

Based on the research the following findings are discussed: identify and support knowledge activists, put knowledge networks on the strategic agenda, formal networks being vulnerable to major organizational changes, create an understanding for how formal networks can coexist with the line organization.

Limitations of the study relate to the fact that the knowledge networks were set up within the same company. That the knowledge networks were set up during a turbulent time when cost reductions were a top priority may also limit the generalizability of the findings.

The findings of the research can help managers to set up a knowledge network successfully. If management is aware of the issues that could be encountered in a knowledge network set‐up, the chances for a successful knowledge network implementation will be enhanced.

Systematic research regarding the actual process of a knowledge network set‐up is lacking. This research fills this gap by the practical characteristics of the research project and its practical implications for management.

Doctoral education is usually considered to be a one‐to‐one learning situation with the professor on one side of the table and the doctoral student on the other. With the joint‐Nordic PhD program in logistics, founded in 1997‐1998 by a network of senior scholars from business schools and universities throughout the Nordic countries, doctoral students are now part of a learning network comprising other doctoral students and senior researchers. One of the program’s purposes is to establish doctoral courses in logistics to improve and secure the quality of research. So far, two courses have been completed: “Logistics in a philosophy of science perspective” and “Methods in logistics research”. The student response to the initiative has been very positive. The Nordic Research Academy (NorFA) and the participating universities have supported the program financially.

The paper aims to analyze the contribution of young academics to the field of public relations (PR) and shows which authors exert most influence on them. The study thereby contributes to the assessment of the state of the art of theory building in the field. The authors analyzed the study data against the background of two approaches on progress in the field: Nothhaft et al.’s (2018) idea of strategic communication as an elusive concept and Winkler et al.’s (2021) narrative approach.

The study comprises two parts. First, the authors conducted a survey among participants of the EUPRERA PhD-workshops between 2007 and 2019, asking respondents about their perception of the state of the field. Second, the authors performed a bibliometric (co-)citation analysis of the young scholars’ most important works.

Results indicate that though the field has progressed in terms of quantity and diversified with regard to established paradigms, it has not matured in a sense that it has settled on a generally accepted theoretical underpinning. However, the data show how the dominant paradigms in the field map onto the co-citation networks that emerged out of the works of young scholars. The authors’ findings imply that this new generation might signal their allegiance to a paradigm by citing the works of its emblematic authors.

Unlike most bibliometric studies, this one uses an author-centered approach, thus studying works that matter most to young academics themselves. Not only do the authors thereby contribute to the analysis of the state of theory building in PR research, but also expand the scope in looking at research as a social system, in which young researchers need to position themselves.

Supervisors and other academic staff can provide PhD students with invaluable professional support and opportunities for advancing their careers. This stems from the strong academic and networking provisions often offered to PhD students by nature of the supervisory mentorship. Although this professional relationship is highly beneficial in itself, many PhD students also wish to develop social and more personal friendships with their supervisors, in addition to academic connections. In this way, PhD students may seek a space to comfortably share their personal lives, identities, and experiences with supervisors and develop a working and personal relationship that extends beyond their doctoral program.

In order to better support how and why PhD students build social and personal relationships with their supervisors, this chapter draws upon evidence from an international collaboration across three institutions in the United Kingdom and China related to doctoral students’ social transition experiences. Building on our experience using an innovative mixed method combination of social network analysis, longitudinal diaries, blogs, and in-depth interviews, we explore the complex, dynamic, and, at times, turbulent social relationships between PhD students and supervisors. Specifically, this chapter provides tips for PhD students to manage and maintain social relationships with their supervisors in order to build lasting connections. This includes advice for establishing personal acquaintanceships between students and supervisors and bridging the gap from supervisor to colleague to friend. Altogether, readers will consider actionable steps for developing socially meaningful and sincere relationships with supervisors or other mentors.

The aim of this paper is to explore the types of social networks and relationships that PhD candidates identify as important in a successful PhD journey.

We use an under-utilised yet rich data source: PhD thesis acknowledgements. The paper employs a sample of 79 PhD acknowledgements drawn from diverse disciplines across Australian universities to illustrate the types of social support provided, who and what is acknowledged as providing support and the intersections between the types and providers of support.

Key findings of the paper are that three types of support are evident – emotional, academic and instrumental – and that families, colleagues and supervisors, as well as others, are acknowledged for providing all three forms of support. Further, acknowledgements give insights into students’ personal and professional development and identification as researchers.

This research helps higher degree research recognise the breadth of relationships in the PhD process to make provisions that encourage such network building. It delineates the meaning and value of social support in successful doctoral candidature. So far, little empirical research has outlined the types of support valued by students.

The study confirms the critical place of candidates’ networks in the PhD journey, broadens the view of what constitutes support and identifies the range of individuals involved in the process. It identifies potential in acknowledgements as a source of evidence of social support and researcher development in the PhD experience.

In this final chapter, the major findings and themes from the book are presented. Linking the discussion of the book to the changing context of doctoral education and training, the chapter will ask the readers to reflect on how doctoral education may change for them and provoke them to reflect if they are ready for such changes. Themes from the book, including that doctoral education is a shared responsibility, that students must take advantage of opportunities that come their way and make them when they don’t and that research is a social activity will be further teased apart. Through this conclusion, the chapter will encourage students to be independent within their doctoral education, while seeking out and retaining important networks that will connect them with their community and support their well-being.

This chapter proposes authentic leadership as a generic competence and an integral part of doctoral education regardless of field of study. The authors explore its potential to enhance the development of doctoral candidates and academics and search for answers to the questions: Can and should authentic leadership be developed as a generic competence in doctoral education? How can it be designed and implemented in a doctoral training module? What would its learning outcomes be? The authors address these questions in the context of doctoral education. They assert that authentic leadership training should be mandatory for all doctoral candidates, and that supervisors should be actively engaged in the development of this underappreciated transferrable skill.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between the Danish rethinking project management (RPM) initiative named Project Half Double (PHD) and the RPM research stream. The paper furthermore discusses how PHD and RPM can inspire each other in research and practice.

This is an empirical paper based on collaborative research between industry and researchers. PHD has developed principles and practices driven by industry consisting of ten leading stars and the impact, leadership and flow (ILF) method. The ten leading stars and ILF method are compared to RPM research. The comparative analysis is then used in a broader discussion about how the research-driven RPM initiative can enrich the industry-driven PHD initiative and vice versa depicted in a theoretical understanding of translations between global ideas and local implementations.

RPM and PHD share a focus on value creation, social processes, learning and complexity while PHD also focusses on lean thinking, agile thinking, front-end loading and leadership, which are largely topics beyond the RPM research stream.

The paper presents how stakeholders from Danish industry interpret the actuality in projects and how they want to move forward with a radically different project paradigm. This is expressed in the ten leading stars and ILF method, which is compared and contrasted to the existing RPM literature providing a foundation for further development of both RPM and PHD.

High turnover rates, delay and dissatisfaction among PhD students about the high efforts and low rewards are common problems in doctoral education. Research shows that many different factors are associated with the mental health crisis in graduate education, but these diverse aspects have not often been studied in relation to talent management and human resource management (HRM) strategies. Based on questionnaires and in-depth interviews, this chapter critically assesses the factors that influence doctoral students’ well-being, using as theoretical framework the self-determination theory, concerned with the social and other conditions that facilitate or hinder human well-being and flourishing, and the job demands–resources model, an occupational stress model that suggests strain is a response to imbalance between demands on the individual and the resources he or she has to deal with those demands. These theoretical frameworks help to explore the perceived job demands and resources, and motivations of a sample of 25 PhD students in the Netherlands, in order to recommend adequate talent management strategies to improve PhD work conditions at universities and reduce the increasing levels of ill-being. The study proposes a collegial model, focussing on the enjoyment of work, instead of the current managerial model, which focusses on strengthening knowledge and skills, and stimulating performance-oriented behaviour. A differentiated approach is needed, offering customized talent development for each PhD student in order to respond to his or her specific qualities, improving general well-being. This radical shift in talent management is needed to counter the mental health crisis in doctoral studies.