The Determinants of Research Group Performance: Towards Mode 2?*

Abstract

This paper explores the determinants of performance of research groups in the context of the emergence of knowledge as a key intangible asset. It focuses specifically on how best to configure knowledge producers for optimal effectiveness in the current research environment. It explores the under-researched area of the organization and management of research groups located in and at the interface of university research and focuses on medical and medical-related research groups. The discussion is embedded within the current debate concerning modes of organization in knowledge production. Factors identified with high-achievement are: strong leadership; finding, motivating and retaining talent; strategies of related diversification; strongly linked theory and practice and, in particular, network connectedness. Such groups exhibit an increasingly complex internal environment, facilitating a flexible response to an increasingly complex external environment. It finds evidence of Mode 2 working, with increasing use of collaborative strategies and some evidence of a thematic emphasis emerging, although to a lesser extent than the literature suggests, since participants are still working from a strongly disciplinary base. Driven by the more competitive environment, both intellectual and commercial forms of entrepreneurship are present. At the hub of this complex web of inter-related factors is network connectedness, which proves to be centrally facilitative in mobilizing the other necessary resources. In an age of uncertainty and indeterminacy, performance and its measurement have become an obsession. Managerialism with its emphasis on: 'order and ratio-

Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups

“…Several later studies investigated the relationship between leadership practices and performance (e.g. Babu and Sing 1998;Bland and Ruffin 1992;Harvey et al 2002;Knorr and Mittermeir 1980;Mumford et al 2002;Stankiewicz 1976). However, these studies leave leadership as a black box, and do not show which specific leadership tasks and practices positively relate to performance.…”

Scale of Results in Research Groups

“…In the consulted literature, Distal Results of External Repercussion covers aspects such as recognition and visibility of participants and RG (Odelius et al, 2011); technical services and specialised consultancy (Restrepo & Villegas, 2007); and creation and mobilization of research networks and interinstitutional partnerships (Harvey et al 2002;Haythornthwaite, 2006;Odelius et al, 2011;Ramos-Vielba et al, 2016).…”

“…For instance, RG trains professionals, develops and disseminates knowledge, and that knowledge can both be inserted in the scientific community and develop technological innovation and extension activities. An example of this relation is that Distal Results of External Repercussion, such as creation and mobilization of relationship networks (Harvey et al 2002), which depends on the impact caused by proximal results, such as the establishment of partnerships with groups and researchers, or advance in knowledge related to the research field.…”

Pedagogy and Process in 'Organisational Problem-Solving'

“…This is the thesis that has appeared regularly in the Management journals in response to anxieties that have been expressed by senior academics about the lack of relevancy in much academic research activity (see for example, Abrahamson & Eisenman, 2001;Benbasat & Zmud, 1999;Bolton & Stolcis, 2003;Davenport & Markus, 1999;Gopinath & Hoffman, 1995;Hambrick, 1994;Hodgkinson, 2001;Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001;Huff, 2000;Huff & Huff, 2001;Lyytinen, 1999;Watson, Taylor, Higgins, Kadlec, & Meeks, 1999). Broadly speaking, the mode 2 thesis argues that researchers can simultaneously increase the relevance of their research, and provide much needed rigour in practical domains if they were to become integrated to form a 'collaborative partnership' (see Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000;Fujigaki & Leydesdorff, 2000;Gibbons, 2000;Gibbons et al, 1994;Grant, 2002;Harvey, Pettigrew, & Ferlie, 2002;MacLean, MacIntosh, & Van Aken, 2001;Starkey & Madan, 2001;Tranfield & Starkey, 1998;Wasser 1990). This is not without some significant challenges from a research perspective.…”