Thesis Template (Double-Sided)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY Yiarayong Klangboonkrong Modes of knowledge production: Articulating coexistence in UK academic science School of Management PhD Academic Year: 2014-2015 Supervisor: Professor Mark Jenkins July 2015 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY School of Management PhD Thesis Academic Year 2014-2015 Yiarayong Klangboonkrong Modes of knowledge production: Articulating coexistence in UK academic science Supervisor: Professor Mark Jenkins July 2015 © Cranfield University 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner. ABSTRACT The notion of Mode 2, as a shift from Mode 1 science-as-we-know-it, depicts science as practically relevant, socially distributed and democratic. Debates remain over the empirical substantiation of Mode 2. In particular, our understanding has been impeded by the mutually exclusive framing of Mode 1/Mode 2. Looking at how academic science is justified to diverse institutional interests – a situation associated with Mode 2 – it is asked, “What happens to Mode 1 where Mode 2 is in demand?” This study comprises two sequential phases. It combines interviews with 18 university spinout founders as micro-level Mode 2 exemplars, and macro-level policy narratives from 72 expert witnesses examined by select committees. An interpretive scheme (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988) is applied to capture the internal means-ends structure of each mode, where the end is to satisfy demand constituents, both in academia (Mode 1) and beyond (Mode 2). Results indicate Mode 1’s enduring influence even where non-academic demands are concerned, thus refuting that means and ends necessarily operate together as a stable mode. The causal ambiguity inherent in scientific advances necessitates (i) Mode 1 peer review as the only quality control regime systematically applicable ex ante, and (ii) Mode 1 means of knowledge production as essential for the health and diversity of the science base. Modifications to performance criteria are proposed to create a synergy between modes and justify public investment, especially in the absence of immediate outcomes. The study presents a framework of Mode1/Mode 2 coexistence that eases the problem with the either/or perception and renders Mode 2 more amenable to empirical research. It is crucial to note, though, that this is contingent on given vested interests. In this study, Mode 1’s fate is seen through academic scientists whose imperative is unique from those of other constituents, thereby potentially entailing further struggles and negotiation. Keywords: Mode 2, knowledge production, UK academic science, legitimacy, means- ends, causal ambiguity, social construction, opaque institutional field i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thanking the scientists participating in this research, and also those who were not able to participate but nevertheless gave me much-needed encouragement to continue. I spent a lot of time training to be a biologist where it was (and is) commonly accepted that the cell culture would not talk back. (Some may find this debatable, but we can continue elsewhere.) The prospect of chasing and talking to people as an essential part of a typical research was a daunting one. These wonderful intellectuals reminded me that it did not have to be that way. Being academics themselves, they were also patient with the unknown of seemingly woolly management research. During the exploratory phase, no one seemed to mind as their question, “What’s your thesis about?” was met by, “I don’t know yet”! Over the years, I have been thinking of what I would say in my thesis about my supervisor, Professor Mark Jenkins. The standard disclaimer applies, of course: I thank him immensely for his guidance and all mistakes in this thesis are mine. And then there are the specifics. I am one of those who unceremoniously come up with “stuff” on a regular basis. I am grateful that I have learned how to navigate the convention without losing that somewhat wacky curiosity that I enjoy carrying in my head. With that being said, it surprises me how easy it is to overlook what’s in the name. Supervisors do not just (for want of a better word) teach research; they also teach how to supervise. I was not told to pay attention, but I’m glad I did. I have had so much fun, whether Mark realised it or not, appreciating what he does (or does not) do. There is no telling if I will end up supervising my own students, but it certainly has been a privilege to be one. While we are still on the topic of education, it is tough to think of a better year than 2011. I thank our Course Director, Professor Donna Ladkin (now at Plymouth) whose classroom presence is nothing short of spectacular, and whose warmth and kindness to her students are uniquely touching. I can forever brag that I was one of her students. I would like to thank the review panel members, Dr Palie Smart and Dr Tazeeb Rajwani for their input, guidance, sympathy, and positivity that they have shown throughout the years. Some of the critical turns (for the better!) I made for my research were attributable to them. Then there are delightful individuals who have been my lifeline – Irena Pidlyskyj, Wendy Habgood, Alison Wilkerson, Sandra Bettison and Jayne Ashley. iii Thank you for saving me for too many times to count. I also thank Dr Andrey Pavlov for his assistance on several occasions. Attempting a doctorate has its own occupational hazard. Someone told me that it is possible to start and finish without making any friend. I am glad that such hazard is somewhat controlled. I had the most fabulous cohort of PhD 2010 – Morgan, Manny, Angela, Martin, Shelly, Kamran, Richard, Claus, along with Elinna, Björn, Christina and Sharon. What a great time we have had, inside and outside of classroom. I always mark my calendar with so much enthusiasm each time I get to see any of them, and there is no doubt I will continue to do so. I am also grateful that the following people from other cohorts have been around: Rea, Farooq (and Sabina), Oxana, Thora and Roxanne, who are always a joy to meet; Minjie, Pankaj, Daniel and Nazia for the company, especially during the end of my thesis write-up; Dima for providing entertainment and other headaches. I am also thankful that I still managed to keep those friends I had left behind. I appreciate the light-hearted, and at times unfounded, optimism they have for me even when I lost mine. And there are those who were already here in Cranfield when I started. They helped me navigate the then unchartered water, talked to me in a familiar language, gave me the kind of camaraderie I have yet to see elsewhere and, very importantly, kept me away from hunger. I cannot imagine an alternative life without these people, especially Mr and Mrs Meeyai (who are occasionally and unfortunately mistaken for my parents) and Khun Vannapha Thomas. Thank you. Very special thanks go to Ezra Kyrill Erker for agreeing to subject himself to the atrocity that is my thesis and proofread this document for nothing. I must then hasten to add that the remaining errors are my own. Lastly, I thank the tiny family patiently waiting for me at home as I write. For longer than I can remember, they have been making sure I have what is needed to get this done, and at the same time shielding me from all the worries when I’m far away. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... x 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of the thesis ............................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 The third mission and changing universities ................................................... 1 1.1.2 Mode 2 knowledge production in response to multiple institutional demands .................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3 Research problem: Normative consequences of unresolved empirical questions ................................................................................................................... 6 1.1.4 Analytical approach and research design ...................................................... 10 1.1.5 Overview of findings and theoretical implications ....................................... 13 1.1.6 Implications on articulating Mode 2 .............................................................. 15 1.2 Thesis structure ..................................................................................................... 16 2 EMPIRICAL UNDERSTANDING OF MODE 2 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 19 2.1 Mode 2 as a departure from science-as-we-know-it ............................................. 20 2.2 Styles of Mode 2 reception ................................................................................... 24