Higher Education

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 651–670 | Cite as

Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research



The paper discusses research leadership in public universities under change and the role of entrepreneurial strategies in research. Research leadership function today in situations where the New Public Management movement one the one hand have introduced management by accountability and control in the university while on the other hand open boundaries to other knowledge organizations, arenas and networks, and creation of resources are becoming more important than ever. Hence, an entrepreneurial strategy is more important than traditional managerial skills in order to produce new knowledge centres. By analysing two cases on the construction of new research groups, we will introduce new perspectives on research leadership, where dilemmas, uncertainty and complex relations to other managerial systems in the universities are in the forefront. The paper presents an important contribution to the understanding of a special form of creating new knowledge production in the university by means of organizational entrepreneurship.


Organizational entrepreneurship Research leadership Universities Knowledge management 


  1. Adler, P. S. & Seok, W. K. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (2003a). Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M. (2003b). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, S. (2005). De gjorde Danmark større. København: Lindhardt og Ringhof.Google Scholar
  5. Audétat, M. (2001). Re-thinking science, re-thinking society. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 950–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1981). The specificity of the scientific field. In C. C. Lemert (Ed.), French sociology. Rupture and renewal since 1968 (pp. 257–292). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1998) Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1998). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley: Harlow.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities – Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, W. (2006). Academic charisma and the origins of the research university. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(supplement), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connell, H. (2004). University research management. Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. J. (1992). Nadel’s paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, from, and action. (pp. 118–142). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foss Hansen, H. & Finn, B. (2000). The local construction and entactment of standards for research evaluation. The case of the Copenhagen Business School. Evaluation, 6(3), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuller, S. (2001). Knowledge management foundations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S. S. P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Godin, B. (1998). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of the weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hjorth, D. (2003). Rewriting entrepreneurship – For a new perspective on organisational creativity. Copenhagen/Malmö/Oslo: CBS Press/Liber/Abstrakt.Google Scholar
  27. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johannisson, B. (1998). Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: Spatial and functional patterns. Entrepreneurship and Regional development, 10, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johannisson, B., & Mønsted, M. (1997). Contextualising entrepreneurial networking – The case of Scandinavia. International Studies of Management Organisation, 27(3), 109–136.Google Scholar
  30. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lange, O. (2006). Stormogulen. Gyldendal: Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  32. Merton R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (pp. 156–171). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nowotny, H., Gibbons, M., & Scott, P. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rinne, R., & Koivula, J. (2005). The changing place of the university and clash of values. The entrepreneurial university in the European knowledge society. A review of literature. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17, 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power – and how they hold onto it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 3–21.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  38. Steyaert, C. (2004). The Prosaics of entrepreneurship. In D. Hjorth & C. Steyaert (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship (pp. 8–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. (2006). Managing the unmanageable; the management of research in research-intensive universities. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.Google Scholar
  41. Tsoukas, H. (2005). Noisy organizations: Uncertainty, complexity, narrativity. In H. Tsoukas (Ed.), Complex knowledge. Studies in organizational epistemology (pp. 280–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weber, M. (1964/1947). The theory of social and economic organization (Eds. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Weingart, P. (2000). From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. West, G. P. (2003). Connecting levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: A focus on information processing, asymmetric knowledge and networks. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 51–72). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Politics & PhilosophyCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations