Knowledge co-production within academic-practitioner research collaborations is a promising means to address the pressing issue of research impact. Yet current theorising is hampered by a limited appreciation of power in the relationship between research partners. In this study, we explore various types of power and their effects on knowledge co-production in government-funded research collaborations. Drawing on interviews with academics and practitioners working on Australian Research Council Linkage Scheme projects, we initially document the prominence of structural and normative types of power, alongside resource power. We further show that both structural and normative power fail to conform to key principles of knowledge co-production. As a result, many of the projects studied fell short of the knowledge co-production ideal. Our investigation leads us to identify a boundary condition: knowledge co-production theory in its current form is bounded by resource power conditions. Our expanded perspective provides for an elaboration of knowledge co-production theory. We also explore the implications of our findings for business schools in search of impact.
AdlerNJHarzingAW (2009) When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education8(1): 72–95.
4.
AguinisHShapiroDLAntonacopoulouEP, et al. (2014) Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education13(4): 623–639.
5.
AlvessonMSandbergJ (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review36(2): 247–271.
6.
AmabileTMPattersonCMuellerJ, et al. (2001) Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 418–431.
7.
AntonacopoulouEP (2009) Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Management Learning40(4): 421–430.
8.
AntonacopoulouEP (2010a) Beyond co-production: Practice-relevant scholarship as a foundation for delivering impact through powerful ideas. Public Money and Management30(4): 219–225.
9.
AntonacopoulouEP (2010b) Making the business school more ‘critical’: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact. British Journal of Management21: S6–S25.
Australian Government (2018) Australian business register ABN lookup. Available at: https://abr.business.gov.au/ (accessed 5 February 2020).
17.
BacharachSB (1989) Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review14(4): 496–515.
18.
BachrachPBaratzMS (1962) Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review56(4): 947–952.
19.
BanksGCPollackJMBochantinJE, et al. (2016) Management’s science-practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal59: 2205–2231.
20.
BartunekJMMcKenzieJ (2017) Reviewing the state of academic practitioner relationships. In: BartunekJMMcKenzieJ (eds) Academic-Practitioner Relationships: Developments, Complexities and Opportunities. London: Routledge, 1–9.
21.
BartunekJMRynesSL (2014) Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management40(5): 1181–1201. Guest Editorial.
22.
BelayaVHanfJH (2009) A multi-theoretical perspective on power in managing interorganizational relationships. International Journal of Social Economics36(11): 1040–1049.
23.
BennisWO’TooleJ (2005) How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review83: 96–104.
CaineKJKrogmanN (2010) Powerful or just plain power-full? A power analysis of impact and benefit agreements in Canada’s North. Organization and Environment23(1): 76–98.
26.
CardinalLBSitkinSBLongCP (2004) Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science15(4): 411–431.
27.
CarlsenACleggSRPitsisTS, et al. (2020, in press) From ideas of power to the powering of ideas in organizations: Reflections from Follett and Foucault. European Management Journal. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.03.006.
28.
CulleyMRAngeliqueH (2011) Participation, power and the role of community psychology in environmental disputes: A tale of two nuclear cities. American Journal of Community Psychology47(3–4): 410–426.
29.
CunliffeAL (2009) Reflexivity, learning and reflexive practice. In: ArmstrongSJFukamiCV (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development. London: SAGE, 405–418.
30.
CunliffeALEasterby-SmithMES (2004) From reflection to practical reflexivity: Experiential learning as lived experience. In: ReynoldsMVinceR (eds) Organizing Reflection. Aldershot: Ashgate, 30–46.
31.
CunliffeALJunJ (2005) The need for reflexivity in public administration. Administration and Society37(2): 225–242.
32.
CunliffeALScarattiG (2017) Embedding impact in engaged research: Developing socially useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking. British Journal of Management28(1): 29–44.
33.
DahlRA (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science2(3): 201–215.
34.
FisherGAguinisH (2017) Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods20(3): 438–464.
35.
FlemingPSpicerS (2007) Contesting the Corporation: Struggle, Power and Resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
FlemingPSpicerA (2014) Organizational power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals8(1): 237–298.
37.
FlindersMWoodMCunninghamM (2016) The politics of co-production: Risks, limits and pollution. Evidence & Policy12(2): 261–279.
38.
GaventaJCornwallA (2008) Power and knowledge. In: ReasonPBradburyH (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, 172–189.
39.
GhoshalSMoranP (1996) Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review21(1): 13–47.
40.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotonyH, et al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
41.
GoldenBR (1992) The past is the past – Or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal35(4): 848–860.
42.
GondJPCruzLBRauffletE, et al. (2016) To frack or not to frack? The interaction of justification in a sustainability controversy. Journal of Management Studies53(3): 330–363.
43.
GrahamP (1995) Mary Parker Follett – Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
44.
GulatiR (2007) Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal50(4): 775–782.
45.
HardyC (1996) Understanding power: Bringing about strategic change. British Journal of Management7: 3–16.
46.
HaywardCLukesS (2008) Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue. Journal of Power1(1): 5–20.
47.
HuffATranfieldDVan AkenJE (2006) Management as a design science mindful of art and surprise. Journal of Management Inquiry15(4): 413–424.
48.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
49.
JehnKA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly42(3): 530–557.
50.
JohanssonUWoodillaJ (2011) Mary Parker Follett - An Almost Forgotten Giant - Worth Remembering. In: JensenTWilsonTL (eds) On the Shoulders of Giants. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur, 130–144.
51.
KatzJSMartinBR (1997) What is research collaboration?Research Policy26(1): 1–18.
52.
KeeversLTreleavenL (2011) Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-based study. Management Learning42(5): 505–520.
53.
KempRRotmansJ (2009) Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences42(4): 303–322.
54.
KieserALeinerL (2009) Why the rigor-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies46(3): 516–533.
55.
KumarNSternLWAndersonJA (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal36(6): 1633–1651.
56.
LehmannYGilsonL (2015) Action learning for health system governance: The reward and challenge of co-production. Health Policy and Planning30(8): 957–963.
57.
LukesS (2005) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
58.
McKelveyB (2006) Response: Van de Ven and Johnson’s “Engaged Scholarship”: Nice try, but. . .Academy of Management Review31(4): 822–829.
59.
MetcalfHCUrwickL (1942) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper.
60.
MillerCCCardinalLBGlickWH (1997) Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal40(1): 189–204.
61.
MowdayRTSuttonRI (1993) Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Journal of Management44: 195–229.
62.
NicoliniDSherMChilderstoneS, et al. (2004) In search of the “Structure that Reflects”: Promoting organizational reflection practices in a UK health authority. In: ReynoldsMVinceR (eds) Organizing Reflection. Aldershot: Ashgate.
OrrKBennettM (2012) Down and out at the British Library and other dens of co-production. Management Learning43(4): 427–442.
65.
ParsonsW (1995) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
66.
PattonMQ (2002) Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work1(3): 261–283.
67.
PerkmannMTartariVMcKelveyM, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy42(2): 423–442.
68.
PerkmannMWestJ (2015) Open science and open innovation: Sourcing knowledge from universities. In: LinkANSiegelDSWrightW (eds) The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 41–74.
69.
PettigrewAStarkeyK (2016) From the Guest Editors: The legitimacy and impact of business schools – Key issues and a research agenda. Academy of Management Learning and Education15(4): 649–664.
70.
PettigrewAM (2003) Co-producing knowledge and the challenges of international collaborative research. In: PettigrewAMWhittingtonRMelinL, et al (eds) Innovative Forms of Organizing. London: SAGE Publications, 352–374.
71.
PettigrewAM (2011) Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management23(3): 347–354.
72.
PiekkariRWelchCPaavilainenE (2009) The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods12(3): 567–589.
73.
RaikDBWilsonALDeckerDJ (2008) Power in natural resources management: An application of theory. Society and Natural Resources21(8): 729–739.
RobinsonN (2006) Learning from Lukes?: The three faces of power and the European Union. In: ECPR joint sessions intercollege, Nicosia, Cyprus, 25–30April2006.
76.
RodriguezCLangleyABelandF, et al. (2007) Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Administration and Society39(2): 150–193.
77.
RosenzweigP (2007) Misunderstanding the nature of company performance: The halo effect and other business delusions. California Management Review49(4): 6–20.
78.
SalterASalandraRWalkerJ (2017) Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics. Research Policy46: 1769–1782.
79.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
80.
ShapiroDLKirkmanBLCourtneyHG (2007) Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal50(2): 249–266.
81.
SharmaGBansalP (2020) Cocreating rigorous and relevant knowledge. Academy of Management Journal63(2): 386–410.
82.
ShotterJ (2010) Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing “beginnings” for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods13(2): 268–285.
83.
ShuganSM (2007) It’s the findings, stupid, not the assumptions. Marketing Science26(4): 449–459.
84.
SimonHA (1967) The business school: A problem in organizational design. Journal of Management Studies4: 1–16.
85.
SodaGFurnariS (2012) Exploring the topology of the plausible: Fs/QCA counterfactual analysis and the plausible fit of unobserved organizational configurations. Strategic Organization10(3): 285–296.
86.
StakeRE (2003) Case studies. In: DenzinNKLincolnY (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, 134–164.
87.
ThorngateW (1976) “In general” vs. “it depends”: Some comments of the Gergen-Schlenker debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin2(4): 404–410.
88.
ThorpeRRawlinsonR (2013) The Role of UK Business Schools in Driving Innovation and Growth in the Domestic Economy. London: Association of Business Schools.
89.
TranfieldDDenyerDMarcosJ, et al. (2004) Co-producing management knowledge. Management Decision42(3): 375–386.
90.
TushmanMO’ReillyC (2007) Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal50(4): 769–774.
91.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
92.
Van de VenAHBecharaJPSunK (2017) How outcome agreement and power balance among parties influence processes of organizational learning and nonlearning. Journal of Management45(3): 1252–1283.
93.
Van de VenAHJohnsonPE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
94.
VermeulenF (2007) ‘I shall not remain insignificant’: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management Journal50(4): 754–761.
95.
WeberM (1947) The Theory of Economic and Social Organization. New York: Free Press.
96.
WeickKE (1999) Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review24(4): 797–806.
97.
WeissmannPFBranchWTGraceyCF, et al. (2006) Role modeling humanistic behavior: Learning bedside manner from the experts. Academic Medicine81(7): 661–667.
98.
WhettenDFelinTKingB (2009) The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies. Journal of Management35: 537–563.
