Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia , University of Oslo

Research leadership: Productive research communities and the integration of research fellows

- mediation – as core – mediation and objects – emotions …..

Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia, University of Oslo


Focus: especially productive research groups and communities

Media studies, history – “soft” computer scienceTheory: Cultural historical activity theory Concept of object as our main analytic concept


Selection of knowledge domains

Media studies History “Soft” computer science

Rules Community Division of labor

OutputObjectSubject

Artefacts

Cultural historical activity theory


Background From individual to collective models Models from other sciences … to social and learning

science..NoE, IP, CofE, CofI….. large scale …. Text production Increased co-publication patterns in most domains

also social science and learning and educational research


Research communities; Historical (Kvale 1997) – apprenticeship – travels ,

Structural analyses where publishing patterns are identified (Kyvik and Sivertsen 2005).

“Everyday life” descriptions (social science studies, ANT). Here, research work is described as a social activity, situated in practice, and strongly

attached to theory, methods and instruments, in order words how scientific knowledge is produced (Latour 1987; Pickering 1995)

Machinery of knowledge construction, (Knorr-Cetina, 1999).

CHAT and epistemic perspective (Saari 2003) - CHAT – long term collaboration between teams

Our stance: How everyday life of research is unfolding, and how the research communities defines and follows their object of research


Questions: How does one establish a joint object in a research

community? Which standards are developed, and to what degree

do these standards bring structure to the researchers’ work and learning?

What kind of implications will this have on the PhD students’ work/learning environment?


CHAT – Cultural and historical understanding of the human genesis

through the concept of activity How different communities and institutions’ create and develops

through short term actions and long cycles of activities. Tensions, conflicts, break downs and contradictions are being

emphasized, object is especially significant (Engeström 1987; Kaptelinin 2005;

Leont'ev 1978), Object as something potentially shared by several parties

(Engeström, 1987).


Two aspects of the concept ‘object’ Object: routines, standards (Miettinen and Virkkunen

2005) Object: procedural

When we enter into an activity, we must find an object which enables us to coordinate our actions

Objects in the making…

Structure and processes - micro genesis Genre – conventions, technical vocabulary


Interviews as a primary data base for our analysis but as also other sources

The main themes in the interview guide consisted of: Biography, research community, research topics,

research leadership (supervision situation), expectations (standards), aims and motivation.


Results from the media studies group The development of conventions and genres of research within one’s own field. This opens up for what we call the negotiation space.

Strong ambitions and different kinds of collective working methods are used to develop the research.

Three types of tensions can be identified: The first is related to time. Different participants are operating with different time horizons,

depending on their institutional affiliations. Here norms about individuality and autonomy becomes an important issue. This influences the opportunities to participate in collective research and writing activities. For example, the PhD students have to prioritize finishing their own projects before they are able to move on.

The other tension can be described in relation to symmetry and asymmetry. On a social level, all can be seen as equal, but professionally the research community appears to have a distinct leadership. This is made clear, and is seen as obvious by the participants. This is a tension between the rhetoric of equality, and how the research is in fact framed and focused.


Media studies cont.: The third tension is related to a degree of division of labour in the

construction of the object of research. What is the single researcher’s object of their own research, and what constitutes the joint research?

The way we interpret this is that the project, as a collective activity, can be described as a negotiation zone, where all the participants are given the opportunity to give their voice to their research agenda. But given that one has joined a research community, the negotiations aren’t open.

For the PhD students and the post doctoral fellows, this means that they must also enter into a set of joint activities, working with cross cutting problem areas within the projects, even if their own projects suffer from doing so.


HistoryResearch groups more as networks Individual research projects Prof. have their own projects Autonomy as norm


History cont.Tensions about what's the objects Content – what's historical research (more knowledge

domains is moving into modern history) Individual versus collective work The individual as the key to scientific progressSeminars and individual supervision


Computer science

Tensions: When it comes to time, the tension consists of prioritising

between the research leaders’ own research, strategic work, international participation and branding, co-writing with other senior researchers as well as guiding PhD students. We can describe this as a strong asymmetry between professors and PhD student.


Computer science

Tensions: Research community stands out as hierarchical, with a clear work

division between researchers on different competence levels. There is little openness for other researchers than the seniors to negotiate within the field of knowledge.

This is strongly related to the fact that conventions and genres are established in regards to the products such as scientific articles. The results from this centre are collective and institutionally based, which means that the collective result is superior to the work each individual researcher contributes.


Computer science Primarily, they have the same objects for their research. The PhD work is followed up closely whenever their work is

contributing to the research leadership’s agenda. PhD students’ work and learning environment is closely

integrated into the collective knowledge development of which the research group takes part.


Computer science: PhD students’ learning environment is characterized by a relatively small space for

negotiation. The objects change, but the change processes is not open to all the participants in the

community. The main emphasis is placed on an overlapping of the research leaders’ and PhD students’

focus. This means that the PhD students increase their opportunities for support, and at the same

time the pressure in regards to the production of a collective agenda, increases. In this community it is difficult for the PhD student to be a remote participant.

The degree of overlapping with the research leaders must be significant enough to create strong common areas of focus.


• Discussion and conclusion How negotiation spaces are established, maintained ………

Emerging objects that direct and redirect the work and the meaning making for the researchers

In the community in media and communication research, the most important thing seems to be the negotiations concerning the constitution of the object. The constitution of the object is not given, and is also gradually changed throughout the PhD students’ progress, individuality as a norm is still strong in this community. The negotiation space can be described as open, given that they adhere to the set of thematic frameworks that this research community is based on, the individual PhD student will have many choices.

Individuality and autonomy is strong norms university as knowledge institutions

Individual and collective doctoring

Individual model ofdoctoral education Doctoral students pursue

personal study projectunrelated to that ofsupervisor by relying onweak supervisory links

Pursuing a monographswithout peer review

Collective model ofdoctoral education New cohorts of doctoral students

pursue collective research problems related to their supervisors evolvingnetwork of research projects

Pursuing an article thesis consisting of 3-4 four internationally refereedjournal article (an established practice in many european from natural to social sciences)

Individual versus collective model of doctoral education

Individual model of doctoralEducation Students are expected to figure out

themselves how to go about doing academic research

They often have only very weak links with supervisors and professional research practices

Many students interupt their studies Those students who succeed develop

impressive agency

Collective model of doctoral education Doctoral students are socialized to collective

knowledge practices that channel and guide the participants’inquiry efforts

Supervision is distributed in terms of horizontal )between peers) and vertical (between cohorts ofstudents) support and guidance, in addition to that of supervisor (+ shared laboratory space)

Students may be a bit dependent on collective practices (challenge of becoming independent)

Interagency: independent doctoral student who experience being a part of a community are doing better that collective doctoral students experiencing isolation


Social organization matters.. how and why Back to the conceptsEmerging objectGenre, conventions, standardsStructure and processesIn which ways is the work differentiated and

how do it cumulate

Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia , University of Oslo

Documents

Transcript of Sten Ludvigsen InterMedia , University of Oslo