Strategies in the production and dissemination of knowledge

The focus of this dissertation is on the organisation and management of scientific research aiming to produce knowledge. The main research question answered in this thesis is ‘What conditions regarding research and the organisation of research do serve the researcher in the production of knowledge?’ This question is answered by analysing the production of knowledge by the researcher from the angle of the strategic positioning of this researcher in the environment. To this end, we developed a model analysing this strategic positioning in the relationship of the researcher. The positioning model contains two dimensions to characterise the relationship: the organisational autonomy and the strategic interdependence of each of the partners in the relationship. \ud The model leads to a continuum of modes in which we can distinguish four typical modes of strategic positioning: the well-known mode1 and mode2, and the newly introduced mode0 and mode3. Mode3 is called the research entrepreneur. Each mode is a specific combination of a low or high necessity for interdependence and organisational.\ud Mode3 – the research entrepreneur is shown to be highly autonomous and at the same time highly interdependent researcher. This means that he sets research goals and directs research being at the same time intertwined with his environment. \ud The model was tested in interviews of 43 researchers active in hard and social sciences. The study confirmed feasibility of the model in creating observables and predicting the production of knowledge.\ud In this thesis we also discuss business models for scientific publishing. We state that any business model for scientific publishing should serve researchers by providing wide availability of scientific information and the basic services of availability and peer review and should offer optional added value services further enhancing the power of selection of researchers. It should serve researchers in attaining their strategic goals. Therefore, it has to fulfil the basic premise that scientific information is to be shared and used in the production of knowledge.\ud On the basis of the diagnosis of the production of knowledge under different conditions as delivered in this thesis we conclude that the positioning model may be of relevance for researchers, research strategists, research managers and policy makers alike. The model can well serve as a tool in setting research programmes and can be used for strategy development of researchers as it shows how to position researchers in their research environment to enhance the productivity in line with the goals of the group or institute

The split between availability and selection. Business models for scientific information, and the scientific process?

The Berlin declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities has resulted in a strong impetus in the discussion on business models, and in particular the model of open access. A business model is defined as just the organisation of property. Consequently, business models for scientific information are discussed on the premise that any such business model should primarily produce added value for the scientific process next to commercial value for the research institution or intermediary acting as publisher. Furthermore, any business model should be sustainable. Scientific information is thus considered an integral part of the scientific process. It is not an end product but an intermediary product subject to scientific scrutiny. The final goal is to integrate the information into the scientific process. To this end, scientific information should be widely available for selection by the user as common property. Two basic business models emerge: one with the focus on added value as selection by the user known as the ‘subscription model’; and another one with the focus on wide availability known as the ‘open access’ model. Both in the subscription model as in the open access model it is the scientific community that invests. In the subscription model scientific information is more considered as external to the scientific process in a consumer type model, while in the open access model scientific information is more seen as internal, as necessary acquisition costs for the scientific process. In the subscription model there is less incentive for broad availability of information whereas in the open access model there is less incentive to develop and maintain added value services to facilitate the selection by the reader. The organisation of property is a condition sine qua non. Although common property, the information is owned by the author claiming this property by the act of publication. Core to this claim of property is peer review being therefore core to any business model. The author is interested in protecting his moral rights against plagiarism; the publisher is interested in protecting the added value against commercial abuse. It is suggested that open access repositories could boost if repository management would guarantee protection of the moral rights of the author. In this way, the protection to the two main infringements could be split over different stakeholders. This would also allow separating the responsibility for availability coupled with peer review as a basic service from added value services coupled to selection at an optional charge. In the end, any business model has to fulfill the basic idea that scientific information is not there just for the record as a commodity, but is there to be used in research and teaching: scientific information has no value in itself

Understanding researchers’ strategic behaviour in knowledge production: a case of social science and nanotechnology researchers

Purpose: This paper seeks to understand the strategic behaviour of researchers when producing knowledge in two scientific fields – nanotechnology and social sciences. Design/methodology/approach: The author conducted semi-structured interviews with 43 researchers to analyse the needs for strategic interdependence (resource-sharing) and for organisational autonomy (decision-making) in knowledge production. When aligned, these two concepts form three modes of behaviour: mode1, mode2 and mode3. Findings: The empirical study results show that, besides well-studied differences in various publications, there are large behaviour differences between social science and nanotechnology researchers. While nanotechnology researchers’ behaviours are mostly in mode3 (sharing resources; highly autonomous), social science researchers’ behaviours tend to be in mode1 (highly autonomous; no need to share resources). Practical implications: This study delivers an understanding of the differences in the strategic behaviours of researchers in different scientific fields. The author proposes managerial interventions for research managers – university and research group leaders. Originality/value: While most studies that compare scientific fields look at knowledge production outcomes, the author analyses conditions that differentiate these outcomes. To this end, the author compares individual researchers’ behaviours in different fields by analysing the need for collaboration and the need for autonomy