Why New Hybrid Organizations are Formed: Historical Perspectives on Epistemic and Academic Drift.

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Minerva Pub Date : 2013-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s11024-013-9226-x
Thomas Kaiserfeld
{"title":"Why New Hybrid Organizations are Formed: Historical Perspectives on Epistemic and Academic Drift.","authors":"Thomas Kaiserfeld","doi":"10.1007/s11024-013-9226-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>By comparing three types of hybrid organizations-18th-century scientific academies, 19th-century institutions of higher vocational education, and 20th-century industrial research institutes-it is the purpose here to answer the question of why new hybrid organizations are continuously formed. Traditionally, and often implicitly, it is often assumed that emerging groups of potential knowledge users have their own organizational preferences and demands influencing the setup of new hybrid organizations. By applying the concepts epistemic and academic drift, it will be argued here, however, that internal organizational dynamics are just as important as changing historical conjunctures in the uses of science when understanding why new hybrid organizations are formed. Only seldom have older hybrid organizations sought to make themselves relevant to new categories of knowledge users as the original ones have been marginalized. Instead, they have tended to accede to ideals supported by traditional academic organizations with higher status in terms of knowledge management, primarily universities. Through this process, demand has been generated for the founding of new hybrid organizations rather than the transformation of existing ones. Although this study focuses on Swedish cases, it is argued that since Sweden strove consistently to implement existing international policy trends during the periods in question, the observations may be generalized to apply to other national and transnational contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"51 2","pages":"171-194"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9226-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

By comparing three types of hybrid organizations-18th-century scientific academies, 19th-century institutions of higher vocational education, and 20th-century industrial research institutes-it is the purpose here to answer the question of why new hybrid organizations are continuously formed. Traditionally, and often implicitly, it is often assumed that emerging groups of potential knowledge users have their own organizational preferences and demands influencing the setup of new hybrid organizations. By applying the concepts epistemic and academic drift, it will be argued here, however, that internal organizational dynamics are just as important as changing historical conjunctures in the uses of science when understanding why new hybrid organizations are formed. Only seldom have older hybrid organizations sought to make themselves relevant to new categories of knowledge users as the original ones have been marginalized. Instead, they have tended to accede to ideals supported by traditional academic organizations with higher status in terms of knowledge management, primarily universities. Through this process, demand has been generated for the founding of new hybrid organizations rather than the transformation of existing ones. Although this study focuses on Swedish cases, it is argued that since Sweden strove consistently to implement existing international policy trends during the periods in question, the observations may be generalized to apply to other national and transnational contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么会形成新的混合组织?认识论和学术漂移的历史视角》。
通过比较三类混合组织--18 世纪的科学院、19 世纪的高等职业教育机构和 20 世纪的工业研究机构,本文旨在回答为什么新的混合组织会不断形成的问题。传统上,人们通常认为,新出现的潜在知识用户群体有自己的组织偏好和需求,从而影响了新混合组织的建立。然而,通过应用 "认识漂移 "和 "学术漂移 "这两个概念,本文将论证,在理解新的混合组织形成的原因时,组织内部的动态变化与科学应用中不断变化的历史条件同样重要。老的混合组织很少在原有组织被边缘化的情况下寻求使自己与新类别的知识用户相关。相反,它们倾向于接受在知识管理方面具有较高地位的传统学术组织(主要是大学)所支持的理想。在这一过程中,产生了建立新的混合组织的需求,而不是改造现有组织的需求。尽管本研究以瑞典的案例为重点,但我们认为,由于瑞典在有关时期始终努力实施现 有的国际政策趋势,因此我们的观察结果可以普遍适用于其他国家和跨国环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
期刊最新文献
The EUropeanisation of Research Infrastructure Policy Between Delivery and Luck: Projectification of Academic Careers and Conflicting Notions of Worth at the Postdoc Level Benchmarking and the Technicization of Academic Discourse: The Case of the EU at-Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion Composite Indicator Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities The Therapeutic University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1