Search

There are many ways in which scientists can engage in entrepreneurial activities. The context of this article is a Swedish research group in marine ecology, which became increasingly involved in entrepreneurial activities. This article focuses on the what, why and how of entrepreneurship as part of an academic role. The study was conducted as an interactive research process, involving activities as well as interviewing participants in the project. Theories of identity work, role identity and passion were used to analyse this context. Two distinct but simultaneous processes were identified: first, when scientists engage in commercial entrepreneurial activities and react by reaffirming their roles as academics and, second, when scientists engage in entrepreneurial activities in a broad sense, fulfilling environmental and social goals (this is compatible with their scientific passion connected to their academic role identity). This article shows that scientists can be entrepreneurial while working with social and environmental responsibility with no conflict between their entrepreneurial activity and their role as an academic.

During a project focusing on household waste a collaborative approach was deemed necessary. Researchers and stakeholders went through a series of workshops starting and ending with an appreciative inquiry which directed the ongoing action research process. This article discusses this process and presents a model for this methodology. Envisioning the results from the outset aided the collaborators' action. Further, the workshop series formed a collaborative forum in which to discuss progress and issues that occurred during the process. Appreciative inquiry aided the collaborators and provided a starting and end point for the action research process.

Cross-sector interactions between university and other sectors are increasingly important in contemporary knowledge production. However, there are few guidelines for conducting such interactions at the micro-level. The aim of this paper is to provide a better understanding of such triple helix interactions. Throughout a six-year project there were increased demands on the researchers to develop applied results and to interact with other sectors. The researchers were challenged to cross boundaries and share their knowledge with participants outside academia. Results show that difficulties in micro-level triple helix collaboration can be related to three different boundaries. These difficulties emerged due to the different expectations of knowledge and variations in the sector-specific ways of working. Results also hint at solutions in the form of boundary spanners, boundary management and a common arena for dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Action Research is the property of Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The STInno project, which was part of the EU Framework Programme 7 aimed to minimise the distance between south-north regions in Europe with a specific focus on wastewater treatment clusters. Three triple helix collaborations from three different countries participated, using their knowledge to work on a case study of olive mill wastewaters. The objective of this paper was to study how the triple helix functioned in practice. Results showed that a management model of the triple helix is somewhat different from the analytical model. A shift between these two views occurred during the project and the participants had to relate to this, as it had an effect on the outcomes. Concepts of social capital and trust are used to further elaborate on this by emphasising the importance of the people side of the triple helix and how the original, analytical model can be limiting when used in management practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A new perspective of waste management using service dominant logic (SDL) • Involvement of stakeholders important for developing waste management systems. • Engagement depends on resources, information, impact and time. For a recycling system to work, both stakeholders and households need to feel engaged in the process. When studying engagement in the context of recycling, it is clear that a broader view is necessary to understand the opportunities and limitations that exist among stakeholders and users. Service dominant logic is undertaken to shed new light on how stakeholders, with the household as a focal point, engage with each other in the service ecosystem. Thematic network analysis was employed using interviews with households, stakeholders, as well as workshops in a project about recycling. The analysis reveals four mechanisms (channeling information, managing different resources, understanding impact, and dynamic and time-related engagement). There are several goals and values present when stakeholders and households engage with each other. When values of different actors align, it provides a solid basis for collaboration. Engagement was also found to be time-related and linked to calculated or perceived future effects, but also required to be maintained with the integration of different resources (e.g. money, space, time, cognitive, emotional, bodily energy). In the short-term perspective, utilitarian (functional) values such as the function of the recycling house emerged essential, while the long-term perspectives included feelings about the environment or one's own contribution. Implications for waste management include the importance of recognizing the relation between, and the involvement of stakeholders and households, as well as understanding how these interact to optimize recycling systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]