The self-determination theory guides this study as it supports the depiction of not only academics’ individual needs for engagement (Orazbayeva et al. The theory describes three needs – autonomy (opportunity for self-direction), competence (ability to execute activities), and relatedness (belonging to groups and organizations) – which are all positively related to academics’ engagement (Orazbayeva et al. In this study, we understand the individual academic level in terms of academics’ motivations and the organizational level as the characteristics of HEI’s support mechanisms (adapted from Skute et al., 2019).Īiming to first identify gaps emerging between the individual and organizational levels in isolation, we draw on Ryan and Deci’s (2000a, 2000b) self-determination theory. However, such studies suggest a promising approach toward connecting the individual and organizational levels (Miller et al. 2019), demonstrates that the two levels are often studied in isolation. The scarcity of studies integrating the individual and organizational levels, as shown in a recent bibliometric analysis (Skute et al. Second, academics experience a lack of recognition from HEIs for their engagement (Miller et al. First, academics fail to see how their own and their peers’ engagement with society fits the policy goals (de Jong et al. This results in tensions between the HEI on the organizational level and the individual academic in two ways. Our understanding of society entails both individuals and organizations: for example, citizens or citizen groups such as children or the elderly, NGOs, and hospitals or churches.Įarlier studies indicate that the strong policy focus on economic value creation hampers academics’ motivation to collaborate with stakeholders from society (Abreu and Grinevich 2013 de Jong et al. Thus, these interactions with society require researchers’ attention (Cai and Amaral 2021). Nonetheless, HEIs’ objectives for engagement do not end with industry but drive the knowledge economy (Cai and Lattu 2021). However, higher education institutions on the organizational level developed policies and objectives toward academic engagement with society. 2021 Sivertsen and Meijer, 2020), resulting in policies and objectives that prioritize economic activities, such as patenting and research and development (R&D) with industry, over interactions with society (Cinar and Benneworth 2021). HEIs often approach academic engagement from the perspective of economic value creation (Aranguren et al. Triple Helix research recognizes academic engagement with society as a response to societal challenges (Bölling and Eriksson, 2016) in which economic collaborations with stakeholders outside the organization are seen as shortcomings (Cinar and Benneworth, 2021). The current study aims to contribute to an understanding of the internal structures of the academia helix to facilitate engagement with society.Īcademic engagement refers to knowledge-related collaboration between academic and non-academic individuals or organizations (Perkmann et al., 2013). The latter is understood as a helix that includes the industry helix in the original illustration of the three spheres but more widely captures societal stakeholders. This study investigates the university/academia helix in relation to the society helix. Specifically, the spheres/helices illustrate the actors and their interactions. Within the wider context of understanding higher education institutions’ ( HEI) roles in innovation, the Triple Helix model is highly significant in explaining the interactions between academia and stakeholders outside academia in a non-linear way (Cai and Etzkowitz 2020 Cai and Amaral 2022). Aiming to bridge the gap using a bonding social capital approach, HEI managers are recommended to strengthen academics’ sense of belonging to an HEI and to promote access to capital and competencies that are within the HEI’s internal network. Third, managers perceived that there was a strong collaboration between academics however, academics reported that they experience negative peer effects when collaborating with society. Second, managers suggested that academics had relevant competencies, but academics indicated they had a lack of such competencies. First, the need and support for autonomy were present. The findings indicate alignment and gaps between managers and academics. Interviews were conducted with managers (n=6) and academics (n=16) affiliated with HEIs from the Hochschulallianz für den Mittelstand in Germany. This study examines how academic engagement with society can be facilitated by higher education institution ( HEI) managers by studying academics’ needs and their managers’ support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (i.e., the determinants of self-determination).
0 kommentar(er)
