Nested tensions and interwoven dilemmas in higher education: the view from the Nordic countries

Knowledge Triangle Configurations at Three Swedish Universities

“…Geschwind and Broström [Geschwind, Broström, 2015] provide evidence of a division of labour between staff, and Marsh and Hattie [Marsh, Hattie, 2002] demonstrate that there is no significant relationship between research productivity and teaching quality. The debated causes of the divide include the concentration of research and the actual cost-effectiveness of the division of labour at the individual and institution levels [Clark, 1997;Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Pinheiro et al, 2014]. Secondly, the link between research and innovation has been explored through studies of research collaboration [Sonnenwald, 2007;Bozeman, Boardman, 2014], university-industry interactions [Mansfield, 1998;Scott et al, 2001;Perkmann, Walsh, 2007;Perkmann et al, 2013], modes of knowledge production [Gibbons et al, 1994], the triple helix [Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff, 2000], the entrepreneurial university [Clark, 1998], the third mission of universities [Laredo, 2007;Pinheiro et al, 2015] and the position of universities in innovation systems [Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009;Jacobsson, Perez Vico, 2010].…”

“…Although the value of linking research, education and innovation is well known, strengthening these ties has often proven challenging [Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Sjoer et al, 2016], revealing tensions between the different tasks and institutional levels [Pinheiro et al, 2014]. These tensions are to some extent inevitable, as the logic behind, and the incentive systems of, universities' tasks differ: education is place-bound and localised in its practices and reward systems; research is primarily valued according to its contributions to the international community, whereas innovation takes many different forms, from the tangible to the tacit.…”

Untitled

“…Geschwind and Broström [Geschwind, Broström, 2015] provide evidence of a division of labour between staff, and Marsh and Hattie [Marsh, Hattie, 2002] demonstrate that there is no significant relationship between research productivity and teaching quality. The debated causes of the divide include the concentration of research and the actual cost-effectiveness of the division of labour at the individual and institution levels [Clark, 1997;Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Pinheiro et al, 2014]. Secondly, the link between research and innovation has been explored through studies of research collaboration [Sonnenwald, 2007;Bozeman, Boardman, 2014], university-industry interactions [Mansfield, 1998;Scott et al, 2001;Perkmann, Walsh, 2007;Perkmann et al, 2013], modes of knowledge production [Gibbons et al, 1994], the triple helix , the entrepreneurial university [Clark, 1998], the third mission of universities [Laredo, 2007;Pinheiro et al, 2015] and the position of universities in innovation systems [Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009;Jacobsson, Perez Vico, 2010].…”

“…As part of these expectations, policy institutions such as the European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [European Commission, 2005;OECD, 2016a] have stressed the need to strengthen bilateral and trilateral ties between research, educational and innovation activity 1 , which they refer to as the Knowledge Triangle (KT). Although the value of linking research, education and innovation is well known, strengthening these ties has often proven challenging [Maassen, Stensaker, 2011;Sjoer et al, 2016], revealing tensions between the different tasks and institutional levels [Pinheiro et al, 2014]. These tensions are to some extent inevitable, as the logic behind, and the incentive systems of, universities' tasks differ: education is place-bound and localised in its practices and reward systems; research is primarily valued according to its contributions to the international community, whereas innovation takes many different forms, from the tangible to the tacit.…”

Humboldt Meets Schumpeter? Interpreting the ‘Entrepreneurial Turn’ in European Higher Education

“…Recent studies across the Nordic region point to the rise of new internal tensions -across the heartland -resulting from the predominance of "strategic science regimes" (Rip 2004) driven by funding agencies and universities' central steering cores (Pinheiro 2012a, c;see also Pinheiro et al 2014a). (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) (Pinheiro et al 2014a) An additional dilemma relates to the assumption that enhanced structural integration through a tighter coupling amongst sub-units and their respective activities will automatically result into a faster speed of response to emerging (market) demands (Pinheiro et al 2014b). Over the years, social science scholars, including higher education researchers (Birnbaum 1988;Hölttä and Karjalainen 1997), have suggested that loosecoupling is advantageous in situations characterized by increasing complexity and ambiguity as it allows different sub-units to sense their environments and respond accordingly, even if this means increasing the overall levels of disintegration across the board.…”