Rinnakkaistallenteet Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
2017
Health Scientist as an In-betweener: A Sensemaking Story
Montonen, Tero
Bloomsbury Publishing
Artikkelit tieteellisissä kokoomateoksissa
© Bloomsbury publishing All rights reserved
https://www.bloomsbury.com/in/advances-in-social-change-leadership-and-organizational-decision-making-9789387471344/
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/7867
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
<at>Health Scientist as an In-betweener: A Sensemaking Story
<au>Tero Montonen
University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Kuopio, Finland Email: tero.montonen@uef.fi
<au>Päivi Eriksson
University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Kuopio, Finland Email: paivi.eriksson@uef.fi
<au>Eeva Aromaa
University of Eastern Finland, Business School, Kuopio, Finland Email: eeva.aromaa@uef.fi
<abs>Abstract
The research case outlines the sensemaking story of a scientist in the rapidly transforming higher education context. Using critical sensemaking (CSM) as the theoretical approach, the paper elaborates how the scientist gives meaning to the ongoing stream of events and activities, including personal aspirations, expectations and setbacks, which take place at the crossroads of science and entrepreneurship. A narrative interview provides the primary data, which is analyzed with sensemaking analysis, and this data is supported by documents and a field diary. The analysis focuses on the sensemaking process around two career scenarios. The results show how the scientist forges a positive self-identity as an in-betweener who challenges the norms and expectations set forth by the scientist’s university. The study contributes to the discussion on power in sensemaking and to that of scientist identity and agency.
Keywords. sensemaking, critical sensemaking, narrative, career, identity, scientist
<H1>Introduction
Universities have undergone considerable changes in the last 10 years: mergers and research profiling, a performance-based salary structure and an outcomes-based reduction in government funding, with an emphasis on external funding and top-quality publications (Välimaa, et al., 2014;
Aarrevaara & Dopson, 2016). Along with these changes that are often related to the idea of the
“entrepreneurial university” (Etzkowitz, 2014; Foss & Gibson, 2015), universities emphasize spin- off entrepreneurship as a career option for scientists, particularly in the hard sciences (engineering, sciences, and medicine).
These changes have already contributed to the identities of academics, for instance, polarizing them into “highflyers and underdogs”, i.e. those who find their place in the rapidly changing environment and prosper versus those who have severe difficulties with doing so (Ylijoki & Ursin, 2015). Among those who seem to be finding new career prospects are non-tenured academics who are willing to build an entrepreneurial career story for themselves (Ylijoki & Henriksson, 2017).
The objective of this paper is to analyze the sensemaking process of the scientist, an in- betweener, who builds an entrepreneurial career story in which science and business are combined in new ways. The analysis of this career story shows how the emerging in-betweener identity enables the scientist to challenge some of the rules and expectations concerning academic entrepreneurship and identify with the high flier rather than the underdog position.
It also proceeds to introduce the theoretical background of CSM and identities. The paper outlines the methodology of the study and presents the case and its analysis. The last section provides the discussion, which is followed by the contributions and conclusions.
<H1>Theoretical Background
The CSM framework (Helms Mills, 2003) has evolved from Weickian sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Weick Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005), which focuses on the study of how individuals engage in making sense of complex, messy, and changing situations. In addition to the socio-psychological properties emphasized in sensemaking, CSM includes critical issues of formative context, organizational rules and power in sensemaking processes (Helms Mills, et al., 2010; Mills, 2008).
The formative context in the CSM framework refers to the broader workplace, social and macro contexts, and how individuals make sense of these environments. The rules perspective rests on the notion that control is maintained in organizations through rules that regulate organizational life.
Helms Mills & Mills (2009) emphasize that rules, which are experienced by individuals as defining, guiding, or controlling behavior (Mills & Murgatroyd, 1991), also include variants of opinion, beliefs, and values. Furthermore, rules are implemented in how individuals’ follow and resist organizational expectations, and they produce an understanding of an ideal and appropriate self in an organization (Hilde & Mills, 2015).
Helms Mills, et al. (2010) suggest that the power perspective in the CSM framework helps explain why some individuals or groups of individuals may have more influence on meaning than others in organizations, and why some experiences, events, and language become meaningful for individuals and organizations while others do not. CSM thus provides a lens to analyze power within organizations and its consequences on individuals’ agency (to have words and other abilities for action in a certain situation).
In comparison to Weickian sensemaking, CSM has had a specific interest in how language in the form of narratives and discourse plays out in sensemaking processes concerning change, and how the identities of those experiencing change influence the way they make sense of events and enact meanings (Hilde, 2013; Thurlow, 2007). This aspect of CSM will be emphasized in the case study presented in this paper.
<H1>Methodology
This paper introduces an intensive case study (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2010; 2016) which explores the scientist as the case. This is a highly relevant approach when individuals’ experiences and meaning-making processes are studied (Radley & Chamberlain, 2012). The primary data for the case comprises a narrative interview with the scientist and a field diary of the first author. This data is supported by a narrative interview with the business advisor as well as emails and documents concerning the spin-off company.
While the purpose of an intensive case study is to present a good story (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991) about the sensemaking process of just one scientist rather than generalizations across cases, the method of analysis is qualitative content analysis and narrative analysis. In the first phase of the analysis, an analytical memo (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016) was written regarding the interview of the scientist. In the second phase of the analysis, a sensemaking story was written around the two career choices that were central to the identity construction of the scientist. In the third phase of the analysis, the sensemaking story was analyzed from the power perspective.
<H1>The Case: Sensemaking as an In-betweener
The scientist in this case study, Alvi Tuisku, earned a PhD in health sciences. Since then, Alvi has worked in various research positions with self-acquired external funding. This research was conducted with a new method that Alvi brought from abroad when preparing the doctoral dissertation.
Expertise concerning this method is rare, and other researchers have contracted Alvi’s research group to perform analyses for them with the method. After a series of extensive discussions, a close colleague and Alvi began thinking about commercializing the method by establishing a new university spin-off company. In the changing and uncertain situation of universities, Alvi’s first
preference would be to combine academic and entrepreneurial careers. In what follows, the analysis of Alvi’s sensemaking process concerning both the worst and the best career scenarios is presented.
<h1>The Worst Career Scenario
Alvi formulates the worst career scenario in the following way: “The spin-off would go bankrupt and I would stay here and continue like this.” This scenario is connected to Alvi’s current, non-tenured position at the university in which you need to secure your salary and other research expenses for yourself and your research group from external sources. There seems to be no end to this situation, even though Alvi’s academic merits compared to those of colleagues in other universities seem sufficient for at least a tenure-track position or even a full professorship. “This creates some seeds of bitterness,” Alvi confesses, referring to the fact that, “I have already brought in a lot of money for the university, but my situation does not seem to be very encouraging.”
The worst career scenario also refers to the possibility that the planned spin-off might not be successful. When Alvi first started to think about commercializing the method in use in their research group, the feedback provided by the university technology transfer office was not very supportive. It took a couple of years until a new business advisor was hired by the university who became interested in the commercial potential of the method. As the spin-off is not operating yet, “You can never know how successful it will be.” In the midst of this uncertainty at the university, it seems unreasonable that now Alvi’s department also wants to wait and see how the spin-off develops before making any decisions regarding Alvi’s tenure-track position.
<H1>The Best Career Scenario
Alvi outlines the best career scenario as follows: “I would work at the university and lead the spin-off on the side.” The first part of the scenario is related to the hope of getting a tenure-track position and eventually a full professorship at the university where Alvi is currently working, and thus not being forced to move to another university. The second part refers to the fact that Alvi is really interested in establishing the spin-off and making it successful—working first as the chief executive officer (CEO) and Chair of the Board of the company and later on as a Chief Technology Officer or in a similar position. This is why a part-time professorship might be a viable solution to be able to continue a scientific career while simultaneously working part-time in the spin-off.
Regardless of whether it is a full-time or part-time professorship, Alvi would prefer the main emphasis of this position to be in research and doctoral education. In this way, it might even be possible to raise new workforce for the spin-off. “Teaching is not one of my strengths or passions, so I would like to do that as little as possible,” Alvi explains.
Since Alvi met the new business advisor at the university, it has become increasingly clear that the spin-off could be successful. The business advisor has introduced Alvi to new prospective clients and all the meetings with them have gone well: “We already have a couple of orders waiting for the spin-off to be established.” Together with the business advisor, who has promoted a fast growth- oriented model for the company, Alvi has met some business investors who were interested in providing early-stage funding for the company. “We first began to plan for a rocket start, but soon this was turned into a soft start.” A rocket start would have meant bringing in external investors right away, but Alvi did not want to do that and lose a major part of company ownership. Instead, Alvi wanted to remain in charge of “one’s own invention” and develop the business by focusing more on research and development before entering the market.
<H1>Analysis and Discussion
The case illustrates two different manifestations of the in-betweener identity in sensemaking, which were outlined in the scientist’s worst and best career scenarios. The scientist’s personal discourse of searching for a new space for oneself at the crossroads of research and entrepreneurship was set in motion in the context of the changing university environment on the one hand and the future prospects provided by the establishment of a spin-off company on the other hand.
In the scientist’s sensemaking story, power asymmetry can be seen in the relationship between the scientist and the university (the scientist’s department and the university business advisor). The power asymmetry with the department was connected to the future prospects of academic work and the possibility of getting a tenure-track position. The power asymmetry with the university business advisor concerned the various choices that had to be made in the spin-off development. The power asymmetry in the scientist’s interactions with both these parties shaped the sensemaking and identity construction in a specific way. The scientist’s discourse concerning the possible career alternatives in between academic research and spin-off entrepreneurship challenged and even resisted the choices offered by the university.
In the sensemaking story, the relationship between the scientist and the university did not seem primarily destructive or oppressive but had some productive elements manifested as the two alternative career scenarios. In the sensemaking story, the scientist had both the ability and words to question whether the pressure to choose between the research scientist identity and the entrepreneur identity was reasonable or justified. Also, the scientist had the resources to resist the fast-growth entrepreneurship identity offered by the business advisor.
Overall, the scientist creatively constructed a new type of hybrid identity in between academic research and entrepreneurship (Jain, et al., 2009; Montonen, 2014). In this identity, the scientist and the spin-off manager roles were combined in less conventional ways, as illustrated by the combination of the tenured, researcher-oriented, part-time professorship (not very typical in the
academic system) with the majority ownership and part-time top management roles in the spin- off (not supported by the department or the business advisor).
Furthermore, the in-betweener discourse of the scientist was associated with a decisive, energetic and hopeful emotional tone despite the fact that only one of the two career scenarios (best and worst) outlined a basically positive outcome. The positive tone of the scientist’s sensemaking was associated with a commitment to an empowering discourse which enabled the scientist to deal with the less appreciative attitude of the university in terms of a proper academic career path. As a consequence, the scientist’s discourse and sensemaking constructed a hope of finding new career pathways that would better suit the scientist’s personal experiences, dreams, and opportunities at hand.
<H1>Contributions
The theoretical contribution of this paper has been to lay bare the significance of power and discourse in sensemaking processes (Hilde, 2013; Thurlow, 2007), which have rarely been studied in the context of academic identities and career aspirations. The case study has illustrated how power was embedded in one scientist’s sensemaking and identity construction processes. The paper has foregrounded the productive elements of discursive power in sensemaking, which in this case was exemplified by the scientist’s ability to challenge and resist what was offered and to question the lack of support from the university for building just and sustainable career paths in the academia.
When looking at commercialization processes from the perspectives of the scientist, departmental management, and the university business advisor, one suspects that none of these actors were aware of the sensemaking questions they would encounter around commercialization activities.
The case study has provided textual material for these actors to discuss sensemaking issues and better
understand the prospects and problems of commercialization processes from the point of view of academic careers and identities.
Regarding other practical contributions, the case study suggests that universities that wish to advance commercialization as part of the changes that are taking place in the higher education context need to think about ways to better support faculties, departments, and individuals in these endeavors.
The research literature offers some solutions on how to improve the situation, for instance, through organizational arrangements that combine centralization and de-centralization of commercialization activities without hampering basic academic work, which remains the core mission of universities (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005).
<H1>Conclusions
This case study has elaborated on power and discourse in the scientist’s sensemaking and identity construction. Showing the power asymmetry between the university and the scientist, this particular case has nevertheless been a case in point in outlining how scientists can have strong agency as well as the ability and voice to challenge what the university offers them in an uncertain situation.
This study suggests that the strong agency of their scientists is what “entrepreneurial universities”
(Etzkowitz, 2014; Foss & Gibson, 2015) should actually strive for and support with all their means (education and training, business advisory services), as strong agency is at the heart of entrepreneurial behavior—whether it be spin-off companies or leading an academic research group at the university.
<ack>Acknowledgments
This paper is part of the Academic Entrepreneurship as a Social Process (ACE) research project (project number 295958) funded by the Academy of Finland and University of Eastern Finland. We wish to thank UEF Business School (Päivi Eriksson) for permission to publish the case.
<ref>References
Aarrevaara, T., & Dobson, I. R. (2016). Merger mania? The Finnish higher education experience. In R. Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, & T. Aarrevaara (Eds.). Mergers in Higher Education. The Experience From Northern Europe (pp. 59-72). Heidelberg: Springer.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321-342.
Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613-619.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2010). Case study research in business and management. In Mills A. J., Durepos G., Wiebe E. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research 1 (pp. 93-96). London:
Sage.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative Methods for Business Research (2nd ed.) London: Sage.
Etzkowitz, H. (2014). The second academic revolution: The rise of the entrepreneurial university and impetuses to firm foundation. In T. J. Allen, & R. P. O’Shea (Eds.). Building Technology Transfer Within Research Universities: An Entrepreneurial Approach (pp. 12-32).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Foss, L., & Gibson, D. (2015). The entrepreneurial university: Case analysis and implications.
In L. Foss, & D. Gibson (Eds.). The Entrepreneurial University: Context and Institutional Change (pp. 249-279). London: Routledge.
Helms Mills, J. (2003). Making Sense of Organizational Change. London: Routledge.
Helms Mills, J., & Mills, A. J. (2009). Critical sensemaking and workplace inequities. In M.
Èzbilgin (Eds.). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: A Research Companion (pp.171–185).
North Hampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Helms Mills, J., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 5(2), 182–195.
Hilde, R. K. S. (2013). Workplace (In)equality: Making Critical Sense of Hong Kong Chinese Immigrant Experience in the Canadian Workplace. Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University, Canada.
Hilde, R. K., & Mills, A. (2015). Making critical sense of discriminatory practices in the Canadian workplace: A case study of Hong Kong Chinese professional immigrants’ experiences, voice and reflection. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(2), 173–188.
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
Mills, A. J. (2008). Getting critical about sensemaking. In D. Barry, & H. Hansen (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of New Approaches to Organization Studies. London: Sage.
Mills, A. J., & Murgatroyd, S. J. (1991). Organizational Rules: A Framework for Understanding Organizational Action. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Montonen, T. (2014). Tutkimuksen ja liiketoiminnan välissä (In between research and business). Academic dissertation, University of Eastern Finland, Finland.
Radley, A., & Chamberlain, K. (2012). The study of the case: Conceptualising case study research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 390–399.
Thurlow, A. (2007). Meaningful Change: Making Sense of the Discourse of the Language of Change. Academic dissertation, Saint Mary’s University, Canada.
Välimaa, J., Aittola, H., & Ursin, J. (2014). University mergers in Finland: Mediating global competition. New Directions for Higher Education, 168, 41-53.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Ylijoki, O.H., & Henriksson, L. (2017). Tribal, proletarian and entrepreneurial career stories:
junior academics as a case in point. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1292-1308.
Ylijoki, O.H., & Ursin, J. (2015). High-flyers and underdogs: The polarisation of Finnish academic identities. In L. Evans & J. Nixon (Eds.). Academic Identities in Higher Education: The Changing European Landscape (pp. 187-201). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
