Abstract
Research outside of academia differs from academic research in many respects. Even if they are intertwined and often overlap, extra-mural research engages different stakeholders, it is disseminated using different channels, and the knowledge that is made in extra-academic contexts is often produced for different purposes than those within academic research. The chapters of the volume on research outside of academia highlight the need to understand what research means in different situations and that there tends to be a reason why knowledge making differs from one context to another. A comprehensive understanding of what research is and how and why it is conducted with different intra- and extra-mural conditions is a necessary premise to be able to evaluate and understand different types of knowledge, their premises, rationale and implications without ending up in uninhibited relativization or lack of understanding of how research can and cannot help people to know.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44(6), 1160–1175.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.
Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. ARIST, 41(1), 273–306.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.
Finnegan, R. (2007). Should we notice researchers outside the university? British Academy Review, 10, 58–61.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the knowledge translation metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501–509.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230.
Haider, J. (2018). Openness as tool for acceleration and measurement: Reflections on problem representations underpinning open access and open science. In U. Herb & J. Schöpfel (Eds.), Open divide? Critical studies on open access. Sacramento: Litwin Books.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches—Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422–462.
Huvila, I. (2012). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.
Huvila, I. (2016). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280–297.
Huvila, I., Anderson, T. D., Jansen, E. H., McKenzie, P., & Worrall, A. (2017). Boundary objects in information science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 1807–1822.
Kagawa, S., & Moro, Y. (2009). Spinozic reconsiderations of the concept of activity: Politico-affective process and discursive practice in transitive learning. In A. L. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 176–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lapsley, I., & Oldfield, R. (2001). Transforming the public sector: Management consultants as agents of change. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 523–543.
Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. T., & Scott, P. B. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.
Saracevic, T. (2010). The notion of context in “Information Interaction in Context”. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX ’10) (pp. 1–2). New York: ACM.
Smith, D. (2003). Collaborative research: Policy and the management of knowledge creation in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 131–157.
Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huvila, I., Börjesson, L. (2019). Epilogue. In: Börjesson, L., Huvila, I. (eds) Research Outside The Academy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94177-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94177-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94176-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94177-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)