Browsing by Author "Hendriks, Paul H. J."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Connecting Knowledge to Management: The Case of Academic ResearchPublication . Sousa, Célio Alberto Alves; Hendriks, Paul H. J.Drawing on in-depth interviews with research managers, this paper argues that academic research management is ideologically close to knowledge management. The research followed a grounded theory approach. This method appears particularly suited for this inquiry, due to the absence of a dominant theoretical framework, the consequent need for extra theorizing, and the appeal to develop a theoretical account that relies on the most privileged sources of this knowledge, namely research managers. The data analysis shows that competing conceptualizations of knowledge and associated management models provide the playground for academic research management. Owing to the impact of cultural and behavioural aspects in the dynamics of knowledge creation, shaping collectively crafted courses of action—rather than managing them—aptly represents the essence of academic research management.
- Practices of management knowing in university research managementPublication . Sousa, Célio A.A.; Hendriks, Paul H. J.The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into how research managers and directors conceive, adopt and adapt organizational structures to regulate and stimulate academic research. Design/methodology/approach – The study used principles of a grounded theory approach for collecting and analysing data in interviews with research directors and programme managers working at universities within the discipline of Business Administration in The Netherlands. Findings – In total, four clusters of concepts emerged from the data, related to: the definition of organization structures; the effects and by-products of providing structures; academic research as management object; and using organizational structures. The collected clusters show that research universities adopt all kinds of organization structures (formal, informal, narrow, broad, intentional, emergent) and that the perceptions and practices of research managers are crucial for deciding whether these structures may become “seeding” or “controlling”. Originality/value – The “practice turn” in organization studies has highlighted how important work practices of individual knowledge workers are, but so far has not paid systematic attention to the role of management, or has even downplayed that role. Structuration, which is a key management domain, is not inherently “good” or “bad” (seeding vs controlling), nor is avoiding structuration. Research managers as quintessential knowledge managers appear centre stage in making structures work or not. What makes structures “seeding” (or not) is their selection, combination, adjustment and/or intentional ignoration in practices of management knowing. An important mechanism is that of negotiation in attempts to accommodate possibly divergent interpretations. The concept of management knowing introduced and elaborated claims that management knowledge and practices are intertwined and not independent management knowledge categories
- Rethinking the liaisons between Intellectual Capital Management and Knowledge ManagementPublication . Sousa, Célio A.A.; Hendriks, Paul H. J.ntellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discus sions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limita tions of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predomi nant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.
- THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE: THE MANAGEMENT OF ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGEPublication . Sousa, Célio A.A.; Hendriks, Paul H. J.For academic administrators, the management of research remains a matter more of hope than expectation. It has proved particularly difficult to measure quality. Managers typically view research as an asset . This essay argues that it is more useful to view research and its management as process , and explores the implications of doing so for managers and researchers alike.
- The Diving Bell and the ButterflyPublication . Sousa, Célio A. A.; Hendriks, Paul H. J.This article addresses the methodology that can be applied when researching the field of academic research management, in which the adoption of a knowledge-based view (KBV) is especially appropriate. In particular, it discusses whether the adoption of a grounded theory approach (GTA) in this type of research is justifiable, given the contested character of the KBV constituents. GTA, so it is argued, is especially useful for nvestigating such a field because of three interrelated arguments: (a) that KBV and related debates provide insufficient theoretical guidance, (b) that the research managers’ experience and viewpoints should form the basis of theory development and relevancy, and (c) that the concepts of knowledge and management are obscure. Adopting a GTA does not completely remove the KBV perspective from the methodological discussions. Instead, it may be useful for modifying the GTA outcomes, thus engendering theoretical plausibility, applicability, and credibility.