Intersectoral Engagements of Doctoral Candidates: Regime Discrepancy Between Academic Territories

Abstract

The paper aims to analyze whether and to what extent collaborations of doctoral researchers with the non-academic sectors is determined by their disciplinary affiliation. For this purpose, the paper uses data collected from a survey of doctoral researchers at four universities from three Scandinavian countries. Relying on a critical realist research paradigm, the paper assesses the explanatory power of the Academic Tribes and Territories (ATT) thesis in terms of the relation between disciplinary groups and prevalence of intersectoral research collaborations for doctoral candidates. ATT thesis puts forward, throughout its development over time, two opposing perspectives around the degree of essentiality of disciplines in determining the professional behaviour of academic researchers. The collected survey data is analyzed in the paper using a logit regression model. The results from the analysis show that different regimes can be applied to explain the essentiality of different “academic territories” in terms of influencing the intersectoral collaborations of doctoral candidates. On the one hand, for the hard-pure and soft-applied categories of disciplines in Becher-Biglan’s typology, the epistemological essentialism proves strongly capable of explaining the prevalence of intersectoral collaborations of doctoral students. On the other hand, in case of the hard-applied and soft-pure disciplines, the contextual factor represented by the country and university variables proves significant, leading to the predominance of social-practice-based understanding of intersectoral research collaboration within those fields.

Keywords

• doctoral education
• intersectoral collaboration
• collaborative doctorate
• Academic Tribes and Territories
• epistemological essentialism
• social practice

References

1. Alise, M. A. (2008). Disciplinary Differences in Preferred Research Methods: A Comparison of Groups in the Biglan Classification Scheme. Ph.D. Dissertation Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
2. Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings (pp. 271-303). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
4. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19 (2), pp. 151-161.
5. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, 2nd Edition. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
6. Bernstein, B. L., Evans, B., Fyffe, J., Halai, N., Hall, F. L., Marsh, H., & Jensen, H. S. (2014). The continuing evolution of the research doctorate. In M. Nerad & B. Evans (Eds.), Globalization and its impacts on the quality of PhD education: Forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide (pp. 5-30). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
7. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3), pp. 195–203.
8. Bozeman, B., and Gaughan, M. (2007), Impacts of Grants and Contracts on Academic Researchers’ Interactions with Industry, Research Policy, 36 (5), pp. 694–707.

9. Braxton, J. M., and Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. Higher education: handbook of theory and research. 11, pp. 1-45, New York: Agathon Press.
10. Cartwright N. (2003). Against the system. LSE, Mimeograph.
11. Chikoore, L., Probets, S., Fry, J. and Creaser, C. (2016). How are UK academics engaging the public with their research? A cross-disciplinary perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), pp. 145–169.
12. Creamer, E. G. (2003). Exploring the link between inquiry paradigm and the process of collaboration. Review of Higher Education, 26(4), pp. 447- 465.
13. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L. et al. (2002). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. London, Routledge.
14. D’Este, P. and Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), pp. 335–350.
15. D'Este, P. and Fontana, R. (2007). What drives the emergence of entrepreneurial academics? A study on collaborative research partnerships in the UK, Research Evaluation, 16 (4), pp. 257–270, https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X254448
16. D’Este, P. and Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, pp. 1295-1313.
17. Franco, M., and Haase, H. (2015). University-industry cooperation: Researchers motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 36, pp. 41-51. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.002
18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
19. Heflinger, C. A., and Doykos, B. (2016). Paving the pathway: Exploring student perceptions of professional development preparation in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education 41, pp. 343–358. doi:10.1007/s10755- 016-9356-9
20. Hemmert, G. A. J., Schons, L. M., Wieseke, J., and Schimmelpfennig, H. (2018). Log-likelihood-based Pseudo-R2 in logistic regression: Deriving sample-sensitive benchmarks. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(3), pp. 507-531.
21. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In: Chickering, A. W. (ed) The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 232–255. Landry, R., Amara, N., Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from the Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, pp. 561-592.
22. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and Reality. London: Routledge
23. McAlpine, L. & Emmioglu, E. (2014). Navigating careers: The perceptions of sciences doctoral students, post‐PhD researchers, and pre‐tenure academics, Studies in Higher Education 40(10), pp. 1-16.
24. Miller, K. D. & Tsang, E. W. K. (2011). Testing management theories: critical realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management Journal, 32, pp. 139-158.
25. Moghadam-Saman, S. (2019). Collaboration of doctoral researchers with industry: A critical realist theorization, Industry and Higher Education, DOI: 10.1177/0950422219865098
26. Nerad, M., Rudd, E., Morrison, E. and Picciano, J. (2008). Social science PhDs—five+ years out: A national survey of PhDs in six fields - highlights report, Seattle: Centre for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education, University of Washington.
27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). Education Indicators in Focus. Who are the Doctorate Holders and where Do Their Qualifications Lead Them? Paris: OECD.
28. Perkmann, M., King, Z., and Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40, pp. 539-552.
29. Pinheiro, R., Normann, R., and Johansen, H.C.G. (2012). Knowledge structures and patterns of external engagement: the case of a mid-size, regionally-embedded university. Paper presented at EAIR 34th Annual Forum, Stavanger, Norway, 5–8 September 2012.
30. Ponomariov, B. (2008) Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, pp. 485-503.
31. Rentocchini, F., Manjarrés-Henrìquez, L., D’Este, P. and R. Grimaldi (2014). The Relationship Between Academic Consulting and Research Performance: Evidence From Five Spanish Universities, International Journal of Industrial Organization 32(1), pp. 70–83.
32. Roach, M., and Sauermann, H. (2017). The declining interest in an academic career. PLoS ONE, 12(9): e0184130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184130
33. Robles, H. J. (1998). Interdisciplinary Courses and Programs: Pedagogy and Practice. Recommendations for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation. Available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED426739
34. Ron A. (2002). Regression analysis and the philosophy of social science: a critical realist view. Journal of Critical Realism, 1, pp. 119– 142.
35. Roy, R. (1979). Interdisciplinary Science on Campus: The Elusive Dream. In Joseph Kockelmans (Ed.). Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education, (pp. 161-196). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
36. Simpson, A. (2015): The surprising persistence of Biglan's classification scheme. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), pp. 1520 – 1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1111323
37. Smith, M. L. (2010). Testable theory development for small-N studies: Critical realism and middle-range theory. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 3(1), pp. 41-56.
38. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: a review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), pp. 637–651.
39. Thune, T. (2010). The training of ‘Triple Helix workers’? Doctoral students in university-industry-government collaborations. Minerva 48(4), pp. 463–483.
40. Thune, T., Reymert, I., Gulbrandsen, M., et al. (2016). Universities and external engagement activities: Particular profiles for particular universities? Science and Public Policy, 43(6), pp. 774–786.
41. Trowler, P. (2008). Beyond Epistemological Essentialism: Academic Tribes in the 21st Century. In Kreber, C. (ed) Teaching and Learning Within and Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Routledge.
42. Trowler, P. and Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education Research and Development, 21 (3), pp. 221-240.
43. Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, V. (Eds) (2012). Tribes and Territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge
44. Wynn, D. J. and Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 787-810.
45. Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., and Barrett, M. (2013) Methodological Implications of Critical Realism for Mixed-Methods Research. MIS Quarterly, Special Issue: Critical Realism in IS Research.