Advertisement

For Love or Money?

  • Poul Erik MouritzenEmail author
  • Niels Opstrup
Chapter
  • 112 Downloads
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)

Abstract

What motivates researchers at Danish universities, to what extent does their current work situation fulfil their expectations of the ideal job and has this has changed since the BRI was introduced? The starting point in this examination is a discussion of the normative structure of science and what factors can be expected to motivate university researchers. There is no evidence that the traditional ‘ethos of science’ as codified in the CUDOS norms has been endangered by the BRI. In general, intrinsic motivational factors are more important than extrinsic factors. However, when it comes to how their current work situation fulfils the preferences Danish researchers have for their ideal job, extrinsic factors seem rather unimportant.

Keywords

Normative structure Motivation of scholars Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation CUDOS PLACE 

Literature

  1. Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, and Brian C. Martinson. 2010. “Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists’ Subscription to Norms of Research”. The Journal of Higher Education 81 (3): 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bexley, Emmaline, Sophie Arkoudis, and Richard James. 2013. “The Motivations, Values and Future Plans of Australian Academics”. Higher Education 65 (3): 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deci, Edward L. 1971. “Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18 (1): 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode” 2 to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations”. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frey, Bruno S., Fabian Homberg, and Margit Osterloh. 2013. “Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Service Organization”. Organization Studies 34 (7): 949–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gagné, Maryléne, and Edward L. Deci. 2005. “Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation”. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (4): 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowothy, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffman, Brian J., and David J. Woehr. 2006. “A Quantitative Review of the Relationship Between Person-Organization Fit and Behavioral Outcomes”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (3): 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kristensen, Jens Erik. 2011. “Classical and New Ideas of a University: In the Light of Recent University Reforms and Performance Management”, pp. 19–48 in Jens Erik Kristensen, Hanne Nørreklit, and Morten Raffnsøe-Møller (Eds.) University Performance Management: The Silent Managerial Revolution at Danish Universities. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Kristof, Amay L. 1996. “Person-Organizational Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement and Implications”. Personnel Psychology 49 (1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson. 2005. “Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit”. Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 281–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mitroff, Ian I. 1974. “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists”. American Sociological Review 39 (4): 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pinder, Craig C. 1998. Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Rainey, Hal G. 2009. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Slaughter, Shelia, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Slaughter, Shelia, and Gary Rhoads. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Verquer, Michelle L., Terry A. Beehr, and Stephan H. Wagner. 2003. “A Meta-Analysis of Relations Between Person-Organization Fit and Work Attitudes”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (3): 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ziman, John. 1996. “‘Postacademic Science’: Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms”. Science Studies 9 (1): 67–80.Google Scholar
  20. Ziman, John. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and Public ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations