Collaboration

Collaborative activity involving various types of organisations was studied in the survey. In general, collaborating with academic organisations such as universities and state research institutes is most common in hard-pure fields and in the social sciences. In the technical sciences, collaboration with private-sector organisations is very common. In multidisciplinary biosciences, the social sciences, and biological and environmental sciences, researchers collaborate regularly with other government organisations such as ministries. In all, collaboration is less frequent in the humanities.

Results indicate that different types of research are done in collaboration with different types of organisations. Those conducting mainly empirical and theoretical research collaborated most regularly with academic organisations. Specialist work / consulting was connected to collaborating with other government organisations.

Development/engineering, on the other hand, was linked to collaboration with the private sector.

H11: Regular collaboration with academic organisations is related to active communication in academic forums.

The hypothesis is confirmed. Those collaborating regularly with academic organisations publish more in academic article orientation and read more academic literature than do those collaborating regularly with other types of organisations.

These findings are linked to the academic research market identified by Ylijoki and colleagues (2011). In the academic research market, research is strongly associated with the international academic community. The results also support earlier findings, by Bozeman and Corley (2004) and Shin and Cummins (2009), with respect to research collaboration and publishing productivity. Additionally, Hollingsworth (2004) has discussed the importance of collaboration with other organisations across discipline and theme boundaries as a factor of creativity.

H12: Regular collaboration with other than academic organisations is related to active communication in professional forums.

This hypothesis is supported. Those collaborating regularly with government organisations such as ministries publish more in professional publishing orientation and are the most active readers of professional literature. However, also those engaging in regular collaboration with academic organisations publish actively in professional forums. Those collaborating regularly with the private sector publish most in industrial orientation.

Ylijoki and her colleagues (2011) have defined characteristics of the policy, professional, corporate, and public market. Collaborating with ministries and municipalities and communicating with professional audiences are related to the policy and professional research markets. Collaborating with private-sector organisations and producing industrial publications are related to the corporate market, wherein the basic objective is to achieve commercial benefit. The public

market does not necessarily include collaboration with other organisations, because it is often linked to researchers’ personal motivation.

H13: Collaboration with other academic organisations is linked to increased dependence between researchers and decreased dependence on other fields.

The hypothesis is confirmed. Publishing with more co-authors and using literature mainly from one’s own field are associated with regular collaboration with Finnish and foreign universities and Finnish state research institutes. The findings confirm Whitley’s (1984) argument about the connection of reputational autonomy to mutual dependence and task uncertainty; also, the influence of collaboration partners on communication practices can be explained in terms of reputational autonomy.

7.3.2 Research funding

Most of the respondents worked mainly without external research funding.

Beyond this, in the technical sciences, the main research funders were Tekes and private companies. The Academy of Finland was the most important funder of research in the natural sciences and health-care sciences. In biological and environmental sciences and the social sciences, the main external research funders were government ministries. The European Union was the main external research funder in multidisciplinary biosciences. Finally, most humanists work without external research funding. Researchers receive different types of research funding for different types of projects. Empirical- and theoretical-type research were connected to having research funding from academic funders such as the Academy of Finland and foundations. Those conducting specialist work / consulting activities typically worked without external research funding.

Development/engineering was connected to having research funding from private companies.

H14: Those working mainly with external research funding are publishing more in academic and professional forums than are those who work without external research funding.

The hypothesis was not confirmed. Both publishing and reading practices are highly dependent on the source of external research funding. Not every type of external research funding is linked to increased publishing activity. In this, the results contradict those of earlier studies by Gulbrandsen and Smeby (2005) and by Kyvik (1991), who found that any type of external research funding was linked to increased academic publishing. Late and Puuska (2014) revealed different publishing profiles between universities and state research institutes and that universities and state research institutes obtain external research funding from different types of sources. Therefore, one could argue that Gulbrandsen and Smeby’s and Kyvik’s results may apply only to universities. In state research institutes, the goal of the research does not encompass production of academic publications. Other types of publications may be more important in, for example, projects funded by ministries or private companies.

H15: Those whose main external research funding comes from funding bodies for academic research communicate actively in academic forums.

The hypothesis was confirmed. Having research funding from academic sources such as the Academy of Finland, the EU, and foundations is significantly correlated with active academic article publishing orientation and academic reading orientation. To be able to obtain research funding from academic funders such as the Academy of Finland, researchers must have a record of academic publications and compete with other applicants thereby. Also, research projects supported by external research funders have to produce publications so as to show the funders the results of the study. Such results are related to the academic research market defined by Ylijoki and colleagues (2011). In the academic research market, research funding is obtained from sources intended for academic research and is most clearly evident in the natural sciences.

H16: Those working with other types of external research funding communicate actively in professional forums.

The hypothesis is partly supported. Professional publishing orientation and professional reading orientation has a significant relationship to working without