Abstract
Knowledge creation dynamics is in transition in modern information-loaded society. We need to see a researcher’s role in a new way: not only as a constructor of scientific facts but as a co-developer of practical tools. We analyse how co-development occurs between researchers and practitioners as a learning process in the context of a multi-actor application-orientated project. The co-development of a practical tool for supporting co-innovation in the public sector was organised as a learning journey. The chapter explicates the researchers’ various methods for enhancing learning between actors and between practice contexts. The co-development unfolds as a temporary, fragile path through different artefacts in a knowledge creation process guided by the researchers. It may also be characterised as an interplay between local practice-specific and generalised knowledge, which enables retooling practitioners for their future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Kramer, S. J., Odomirok, P. W., & Marsh, M. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.
Binder, T., & Brandt, E. (2008). The design: Lab as platform in participatory design research. CoDesign. International Journal of CoDesign in Design and the Arts, 4(2), 115–129.
Cerf, M. (2011). Is participatory research a scientific practice? Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), 414–418.
Ellström, P.-E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 27–40.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(½), 11–21.
Fujimura, J. H. (1987). Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 257–293.
Hasu, M. (2005). In search of sensitive ethnography of change: Tracing the invisible handoffs from technology developers to users, mind, culture, and activity. An International Journal, 12(2), 90–112.
Hasu, M., & Miettinen, R. (2006). Dialogue and intervention in science and technology studies: Whose point of view? (Working Papers 35/2006). University of Helsinki, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research.
Hasu, M., Saari, E., Honkaniemi, L., Tuominen, T., Lehtonen, M. H., Kallio, K., & Toivonen, M. (2015a). Trajectories of learning in practice-based innovation—Organizational roles at play in sustainable innovation management. In M. Elg, P.-E. Ellström, M. Klofsten, & M. Tillmar (Eds.), Sustainable development in organizations (pp. 127–152). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hasu, M., Toivonen, M., Tuominen, T., & Saari, E. (2015b). Employees and users as resource integrators in service innovation—A learning framework. In R. Agarwal, W. Selen, R. Green, & G. Roos (Eds.), Handbook of service innovation (pp. 169–192). London: Springer.
Knorr Cetina, K. D. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London: Routledge.
Labinger, J. A. (1995). Science as Culture: A view from the petri dish. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 285–306.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science. A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Mattelmäki, T., & Lehtonen, T. (2006). Designing alternative arrangement for ageing workers. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (pp. 101–104). Palo Alto, CA: CPSR.
Nilsen, P., & Ellström, P. E. (2012). Fostering practice-based innovation through reflection at work. In H. Melkas & V. Harmaakorpi (Eds.), Practice-based innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications (pp. 155–172). Berlin: Springer.
Roth, W.-M., & Hwang, S. W. (2006). On the relation of abstract and concrete in scientists’ graph interpretations: A case study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(4), 318–333.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355.
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987–1008.
Saari, E., & Kallio, K. (2011). Developmental impact evaluation for facilitating learning in innovation network. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 227–245.
Segestråhle, U. (1993). Bringing the scientists back in: The need for an alternative sociology of scientific knowledge. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science. From content to contention. New York: State University of New York Press.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Sundbo, J., & Toivonen, M. (2011). User-based innovation in services. Cheltenham: Edward Eldgar Publishing.
Toivonen, M., & Tuominen, T. (2009). Emergence of innovations in services. The Service Industries Journal, 29(7), 887–902.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (2007). Research and relevance; Implications on Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 769–774.
Victor, B., & Boynton, A. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1973). Perception, representation, and the forms of action: Towards an historical epistemology. In M. Wartofsky (Ed.), Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models. Representation and the scientific understanding. London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saari, E., Hasu, M., Honkaniemi, L., Kallio, K., Tuominen, T., Lehtonen, M. (2017). Co-development and Retooling as New Roles for Applied Research. In: Russo-Spena, T., Mele, C., Nuutinen, M. (eds) Innovating in Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43378-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43380-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)