Paper (work in progress) presented at:
The European Sociology Association (ESA) conference “Will Europe work?”
18-21 August 1999, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The complexity of knowledge utilisation[1]
- Management research as a case
Søren Barlebo Wenneberg
()
Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy
Copenhagen Business School
Denmark
S
cience is within a time of fermentation. New perspectives and structures are seeing the light of day. A subject now receiving a lot of attention is the utilisation of knowledge. Till now, scientists in the field of science studies have kept their focus on the production of knowledge, but now they also take an interest in the utilisation of scientific knowledge. Some new popular views on the scientific system thus include applied science and the utilisation of scientific knowledge as central issues. An example is Gibbons and his co-authors’ concept of ”mode 2 science production” which has a distinct reference to the application side of science. “Mode 2 science production” is happening in what they call “contexts of application” (Gibbons et. al., 1994). The concept of ”The Triple Helix” (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998) is also firmly anchored in the problem of application and the view on science in connection with its external stakeholders. The increased political focus on the utility and relevance of science likewise drags towards an increased interest in the application of science. Science is increasingly legitimated by being used outside scientific institutions.
Previously, focus was on the production of research, and the relevant concepts were truth, objectivity, methodology, validity, etc. These concepts still play an important role in science and science studies, but are now being supplemented by problems regarding the application of research. The extensive use of terms as “science as a commodity”, patenting and partnership with the business-sector also reflects this development. The potential of the application of research is increasingly being used for strategic initiatives, and many groups are involved: Ministries of research, research councils, the senior management of universities, the professional managers of university departments, the individual researchers, private companies, professional interest groups (e.g. industrial associations) and public organisations. They all wish to take advantage of the research utilisation. A steady flow of pamphlets, white papers, presentations, etc. appears, which all include strategic considerations on how to secure the best possible research utilisation. Business companies and public organisations are preparing for the knowledge society and an efficient utilisation of the research based knowledge is an essential strategic challenge in relation to this.
But Science changes, when constantly being viewed from a perspective of utilisation. The internal structures and the research processes, which are the core of science, are changing. Changes that are not necessarily unproblematic. Consequently, it is important to ask the question: How does science look, when it is focused on utilisation? This is, of course, a difficult and very wide question, which is not easily answered. All the same, I will try to contribute to the answer through this paper by analysing research within the field of management. The basic assumption is that this field of research has always been oriented towards “mode 2“[2]. From the study of this field we can learn what practise-oriented research is, and how it differs from “traditional” research, and what kind of problems that relate to it.
The paper will begin with a description of the traditional conception of utilisation of research-based knowledge. Subsequently, it will describe how the production and utilisation of knowledge in the field of management is proceeding, and how it is differs from the traditional conception. At the end of the paper, I will shortly outline some of the problems from which this kind of knowledge production and utilisation can suffer.
The “traditional” understanding of knowledge application
Now one could be induced to think that the increasing focus on research utilisation was matched by a huge quantity of knowledge about utilisation of research. But that would be a premature conclusion. Even though, we know a great deal about the research production of knowledge, we still have very little knowledge about the application. Still, the subject is not new. Even Francis Bacon (1561-1626) considered how rational knowledge about Nature could be used to utilise Nature[3]. But it was not until 1970[4], that a more systematic production of empirical studies of research application was initiated. Thus, a large number of empirical studies of the application of research-based knowledge were carried out throughout the 70’ies and in the beginning of the 80’ies. (see Weiss, 1977; Larsen, 1980; Larsen; 1981 for surveys on these studies).
These early studies are based on a very common understanding of the relation between science and the surrounding society. A one-way linear model in which research generates knowledge independent of practice, subsequently transferred to and applied in practice in the surrounding society. (Andersen et al., 1984, s. 61). The model understands science as a “locomotive” dragging the rest of the society. The typical way to apply research according to this understanding is instrumental. The instrumental way of applying knowledge is used when knowledge through insight in causal mechanisms contributes to effective manipulative strategies to attain external given objectives.
In connection with the instrumental locomotive-model, an archetypal ideal of how knowledge is applied exists. An ideal that both researchers and research politicians, when they unreflectively talk about research application, refer to. The core of this ideal is that applied knowledge is structured as general or universal rules of the type: “if one do so, then this will happen”. The actual application is a logical deduction based on the rule and a description of the initial condition. Thus the ideal has a two-pieced core[5]: 1) A number of explicit axioms or laws of Nature expressing the knowledge, and 2) The conclusion is made by using deductive logic. As an example one can figure out to what extent a given material will expand when heated, or how fast a body will fall to the ground. This is obviously very applicable and can be used both on an analytical level and be incorporated in concrete artefacts or technologies.
There are at least two central points, which are important to understand in connection with the ideal. First, that it actually is an ideal, because it is based on simple, closed and well defined universes with other things being equal. In spite of this idealistic character, the ideal is very applicable in practice. The proximate forecasts are precise enough when building functional technology. This point can explain why this model of knowledge application has become the archetypal ideal.
The second point is that the two-pieced core of the model is cognitively asymmetrical. The difficult and interesting part is to generate and justify the knowledge on which the application is based. The deduction of what is valid in practice – i.e. the use of deductive logic – is cognitively unproblematic in the sense that a computer is able to figure it out. When this kind of knowledge application has been the ideal of knowledge application, the actual application or deduction will be seen as boring and uninteresting. The challenging and interesting part will, on the contrary, be the production part. Can the regularity be confirmed? On what kind of empirical evidence is it based? To what extent is the description of the context adequate? This point can partially explain, why the knowledge production part of science is so well described in comparison to the application part, and why the application of science is seen as unproblematic (as in the case of the one-way linear model).
It is obvious that the understanding of knowledge application described above (science as the locomotive of society, linear, one-way, instrumental and the archetypal ideal) is not the only point of view appearing over the last 25 years. For example, the instrumental knowledge application has been supplemented by a number of other analytical modes of knowledge application – especially the enlightening-model and a number of models (e.g. strategic and tactical application) which are more a way of abusing scientific knowledge (Weiss, 1977; Weis & Bucuvalas, 1980; Deshpande, 1981; Edvardsen, 1998). There is no doubt that these alternative applications are happening, empirically, but they have not played the same dominating role as the instrumental model in the fields of science studies and science policy. One of the reasons for this is that it is not perfectly clear which kind of knowledge application that is actually occurring here. That research-based knowledge can revise prejudices, change the conception on society and people, as well as eliminate pseudo-problems, is without doubt. But the enlightening-model is weak as to the clarification of the specific types of knowledge and the potentials for rationalisation that this knowledge imply. It does not have the simplicity of the instrumental ideal-model.
There has also been alternatives to the one-way linear locomotive model. One of the problems in the former understanding is the one-way logic. Knowledge is produced in one place, communicated in one-way only and the users know how to use this knowledge in an unproblematic way. A model which to a higher extent seems to correspond with the various problematic facets of the complex of utility is a two-way two-society theory. This means a model in which the researcher society and the user society (for instance the political system) are comprehended as two separate societies with very different rationales and mentalities. The differences between the ways these societies function might explain the under-utilisation, which is found in various of the studies. A more adequate understanding is that there is a two-way relation between these two societies. The research is used in practise, but the society of practicians and its utilisation of the research-based knowledge in many ways also influence the research.
Despite these modifications of the one-way linear locomotive model and the instrumental ideal model, the typical comprehension of research utilisation has not changed dramatically. Let me shortly sum up the characteristics of this ideal understanding of knowledge utilisation:
· The use of knowledge is instrumental.
· Knowledge is universal or at least very general.
· The knowledge is stated explicitly.
· The application is done by deductive logic.
Many researchers and most research politicians still think of research utilisation in terms originating from this ideal understanding. They are not aware that research utilisation is a much more complex, diffuse and multi-facetted activity. Despite the fact that Carol Weiss and Michael Bucuvalas as early as in 1981 wrote the following (Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1981, pp. 312):
Finally, it is important to note that ”using research” is a much broader and more diffuse concept here than the research-for-problem-solving literature adopts. .... Other data in the study confirm that officials ”use” research in this variety of ways.
However, when the utilisation model of research becomes more and more central for the understanding of modern science it is important that the traditional perception of what utilisation of knowledge is, is varied. It is important to conduct empirical studies showing the variety of specific forms of utilisation of knowledge and the complexity of these forms. A complexity, which is not at all included in the analytical simplicity of the ideal model. The description in the following part of the management research and its utilisation is to be seen as a contribution to this.
Production and utilisation of knowledge in modern management research
Let me underline one thing at once! It is very difficult to find research-based knowledge within the management area, which has the general and universal character implied by the ideal model. Knowledge within this area is not so disengaged from the context from which it originates. On the contrary, there is a lot of knowledge, presented as being in touch with the context and with reality, and this is exactly the idea of this knowledge! How this knowledge should be used in a specific situation is not clear. A pure deductive logic is not at stake. It is clear that the management area and its model of utilisation does not look like the ideal model. But how does it look? Let us look at three examples.
One of the most famous pieces of research within the management area (which also has been heavily used by consultants) is the book ”In search of excellence” by Peters and Waterman (1982). In this book the following knowledge is presented:
1. A line of successful (measured in various ways) companies all have focus on a number of factors: x, y, z, etc.
2. Consequently, if one as a manager focuses on these factors, one will be successful.
This knowledge has to a high extent been used by managers and consultants. The authors, themselves, are for example McKinsey consultants. However, at the same time it is clear that this knowledge is not universal or general. This knowledge is for instance historically tied to the period of time in which the companies were studied. This is for example seen in the fact that several of the successful companies were not successful 10 years after the conduction of this study. The problem is that there is no separate evidence that it is exactly these factors which made the companies successful. Neither have any causal relations been established between the internal factors of the company and the performance of the company in a financial market. This way there is no doubt that this kind of knowledge does not meet the demands made by the ideal model. However, as it has been used a lot, it is still relevant and interesting to ask what kind of knowledge it is and which status it has in a situation of utilisation.