Seminar
Academic profession in knowledge based society: the project conceptual
and methodological definition
University of Aveiro,
Portugal, September 10-12 2015
This seminar follows two previous international seminars organised with the aim to find ways
to give continuity to the work developed by the international project CAP (Changes in
Academic Profession). The first was held at the University of Helsinki from 5 to 6 of September
in 2014. In this seminar an overview of the country situation on STEM fields was provided
based on secondary analysis and literature review. Simultaneously, thoughts on a survey of
new generation of academic profession (PhD candidates) were also shared. The second was
held at the University of Campinas in Brazil from April 2015. In this seminar the focus of the
research network was clarified. Namely it was agreed that the main aim of the project is to
understand how the emergence of the new realities created by the knowledge society affects
academics’ work and values.
Based on these two seminars it was agreed that two new surveys will be undertaken by the
consortium. One is The Academic Profession in the Knowledge-Based Society survey, which
will focus on the impact of the knowledge society and the new, innovation centred, framework
of science and technology policies on the academic profession. The second is the Formative
Years survey, aiming to address the career experiences, expectations and attitudes toward the
academic life of academics in the formative phase of the career.
The seminar in Aveiro is the third of four workshops scheduled to prepare the forthcoming
surveys. In accordance with the results of previous seminars and the issues which are still
under discussion, the main aim of this seminar is to mature a conceptual framework for
guiding the development of the research strategy, the sample design and the questionnaire
outline. The seminar is organised around three main topics: Conceptual challenges in studying
academic profession in contemporary societies; Comparative research methods in higher
education field and Young researchers in STEM careers.
Academic Profession in knowledge based society
The Conceptual Model
The term knowledge society has been used with different interpretations even if most of them
are inter-related. The term is used with a broad meaning to translate the most relevant
changes within a post-modern society. Daniel Bell (1973) was, along with others as Peter
Drucker (1993), one of the first authors to refer to post-modern society as a knowledge
society. Two main reasons were appointed to classify contemporary society in this way: first,
innovation, considered as the main driver of the economy, could only be enhanced by a strong
emphasises on research and development; second, a large share of employment and a large
proportion of Gross National Product were related with activities associated with knowledge.
More recently, the Lisbon strategy conveyed a set of expectations in this field oriented to turn
EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.
The strong popularity and use of the concept turn it into one of those concepts that translates
a misrecognition (Bourdieu 2000) because there is no conscious idea that what is assumed to
be normal is, in fact, the result of the context in which it is structured. Nevertheless one can
say that knowledge society refers to the increasing dependence of society on knowledge for
economic production, political regulation and even for everyday life Delanty (2002). In this
sense the knowledge society is mainly identified as knowledge economy. In fact, to Olssen and
Peters (2005) the knowledge economy emerges as a meta-idea legitimating and serving
national interests in the face of the globalisation of the competitive arena. It is assumed that
the knowledge society/economy concepts are used as metaphors’ to express not only the
increasing production and flow of knowledge in modern globalised economies but also the way
knowledge cultures spread and are now embedded in society (Knorr Cetina, 1997; 2000).
Delanty (2002) identified three main changes concerning knowledge and society: (1) the state
stops being the sole guardian of knowledge production with support for research coming from
other sources; (2) knowledge is more evenly spread through society; (3) there is an increasing
demand for singular scientists to be accountable to society.
In this sense, the knowledge society/economy is expected to have effects over higher
education and, more specifically, over academics work and values. These effects are assumed
as the emergence of a second revolution in HE. The models of knowledge production and the
science ethos that supported the Humboldtian university, which rested on such principles as
the integration of teaching and research, including the obligation to foster the creation of
knowledge as well as ensuring its preservation and transmission, and the demand for
autonomous pursuit of truth (Schwinges, 2001) are now putted in question. Knowledge
transference to the entrepreneurial set and the alliance or partnership between the State, the
university, their academics and industry (Etzkowitz, 2003) becomes a relevant topic in political
agendas, as well as in policies on science and technology. Within this context, the modes of
knowledge production also change.
To conceptualise changes in the modes of knowledge production, Gibbons et al. (1994)
referred to the substitution of Mode 1 knowledge production, which is executed within
universities and is dominated by an academic agenda, with Mode 2 knowledge production,
which occurs through intensive interaction between knowledge producers and society, being
driven by a broad range of interests. In turn, Ziman identified a change from an environment
of ‘academic science’ defined as ‘the systematic pursuit of scientific research in institutions of
higher education’ (Ziman, 1994, p. 133) to a ‘post-academic science’ in which research implies
a deep entanglement ‘in networks of practice’ (Ziman, 1994, p. 179).
Even if there is relevant research in this topic there is also a lack of comparative studies. How
can we describe and interpret the way knowledge society/economy has been applied
worldwide? What are the main impacts of the knowledge society/economy over academics
work and values? Are there any influences of the specificities of the national contexts in the
way academics react to knowledge society/economy?
Comparative Methodologies
The terms knowledge society and knowledge economy have been used worldwide, sustaining
a global dimension of the phenomenon. However, relevant differences may exist on the way
the concepts are constructed and used in different national contexts. In the same way, its
effects over the way knowledge is produced and academics work and values are affected may
also differ, turning a comparative analysis relevant.
Since the 1960’s a major debate took place about research methodology in comparative
education (Bereday, 1984; Holmes, 1965; 1977 and Noah & Eckstein, 1969). The discussion
stress the use of inductive and deductive analysis as well as the comparative perspective being
based in countries or in the definition of concepts and variables that could be tested in
different countries. More than five decades later, the debate on comparative education is still
alive. Many theoretical, ideological and disciplinary orientations, including various feminist
theories, poststructural theories and postmodern theories entered comparative education
discourses. If it is true that they have enriched the field it is less clear their impact on research
methodology (Rust, Soumaré, Pescador & Shibuya, 1999).
According to Teichler (1996) HE field assisted to an increasing interest in comparative research
in a great extent reinforced by the community of higher education researchers in Europe. In
spite of the great advantages the author recognises in developing comparative research –
serving as a way to enhance common identity and growing quality in HE research field – he
also claims that some cautious are needed. In fact, Teichler (1996) calls the attention to the
way comparative research designs most of the times lack the opportunity of setting a research
agenda of clearly defined hypotheses to be tested, turning out to be too simplistic because
they tend to disregard of the complex context.
To assure the development of a mature and productive comparative project, with fruitful
results, there is a need to discuss the main rational for taking a comparative analysis. In a way,
the design of the methodological structure underlying this research is fundamental to assure
productive results. Having this is mind the seminar intends to discuss the research design and,
more specifically, the issues related with the definition of the sample and the construction of
the instrument to collect data.
Young Researchers and the importance of formative years
To assure an effective transformation on the way knowledge is produced and disseminated
changes in the way training and socialisation processes are developed are also expected. In
fact, in the last decades fundamental changes have been noticed in the definition and
implementation of PhD programs. Traditionally conceived as a crucial component of the
research developed in universities and a starting point to enter academic career, PhDs have
become increasingly a target of policy attention and of institutional strategies, being perceived
as a resource “that should not be left exclusively in the hands of the disciplinary and scientific
communities” (Kehm 2007: 1). In this context, new forms of doctorate training have emerged
(Kehm, 2007; Park, 2005). These changes in the way doctoral training is organized have been
documented since the 1990s (Rip and Van de Meulen, 1996, Enders and de Weert, 2004,
Enders, 2005, Teichler, 2006).
It is not only training that is changing but also, as Lee, Miozzo and Laredo (2010) revealed the
career prospects of the new generation of researchers. An example are the recent publications
of European and OECD reports trying to characterise researchers in different countries (OECD,
2002; 2003; 2009) or the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the
Recruitment of Researchers (EU, 2005). International organizations interest in knowledge
society has also increased the need to reflect on, and gather data about, researchers, their
training, socialisation and careers. Researchers have been defined as “professionals engaged in
the conception and creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems
and also in the management of the projects concerned” (OECD 2002, p.93).
There is also an increasing concern in research with the career perspectives of the ‘early
researchers’ or ‘researchers’ candidates’ especially under the new European context (Deem &
Brehony, 2000; Musselin, 2003; Park, 2005; 2007; Ates, Höllander, Koltcheva, Krstic & Parada,
2011). Results of empirical studies reveal that there is an increasing uncertainty for young
doctorates’ careers. They have more flexible and transient career paths and they are facing
more difficulties in entering into an academic career (Hakala, 2009; Huisman, Weert, &
Bartelse, 2002; Mangematin & Robin, 2003; Horta & Hasanefendic, 2015).
In this seminar one intends also to discuss the definition of a comparative international
research project to extend the analysis of how the changes in the general institutional
framework of doctoral training really impacts training opportunities and experiences, and how
it mould differences in career perspectives (both inside and outside the academic world). One
goal of such research is to understand how these differences in training and experiences
produce distinct profiles of skills, competences in the new generation of scholars.
Seminar Venue:
The Portuguese team will arrange the seminar venue, but participants will be responsible for
their own hotel and travel arrangements and costs.
The seminar will be held at the University of Aveiro located in the city with the same name.
How to reach the university
The closest airport is Francisco Sá Carneiro International Airport in Oporto, located some
70kms to the north of Aveiro. Portela International Airport in Lisbon is located 250kms to the
south of Aveiro.
From Oporto to Aveiro
The journey from the airport to the railway station (called Porto-Campanhã) which has direct
rail connections to Aveiro can be done by taxi for around 20€ and takes around 30 minutes. A
less expensive way to reach the Porto-Campanhã railway station is to use the Metro, Violet (E)
Line, which has a terminal at the airport. The trips between the airport and the railway station
take about 32 minutes (Z4 ticket). More information on the metro in here:
http://www.metrodoporto.pt/en/PageGen.aspx?SYS_PAGE_ID=
The train journey to Aveiro takes about 40 minutes if you take the Alfa Pendular train and
Intercidades or 1h15 if you take a regular train. There are many trains running regularly to
Aveiro from Porto.
See here the train timetables. http://www.cp.pt/passageiros/en/
From Lisbon to Aveiro
If you're arriving by plane, the best way to come to Aveiro is by train from Lisboa-Oriente
railway station. To get to the train station, you can take a taxi, which takes about 10 minutes.
See here the train timetables. http://www.cp.pt/passageiros/en/
To reach the University Campus
Aveiro railway station is located at about 20 minutes walking distance or 5 minutes taxi ride
from the University Campus. To reach the Campus, you can also use the bus (green line) which
departs at regular intervals from outside the railway station.
By road
From the north using the A1 motorway or from the east using the A25. Take the A1 motorway
headed to Lisbon. Exit the A1 in the direction of Aveiro and take the A25. There are two exits
to the city from the A25, first “Aveiro-Norte" and some kilometers further on, the "Aveiro"
exit. This second exit is the best for reaching the University of Aveiro.
From the south using the A1 motorway. Take the A1 motorway in the direction of Porto. Exit
the motorway at "Aveiro-Sul/Águeda" (exit 15) and follow the EN235 road directly to the
University Campus. From the south, using the A8 and A17 motorways. Exit the motorway at
"Aveiro-Sul” and follow the EN235 road directly to the University campus.
Program
10 September
14.30-15.00
Welcome reception
15.00-16.00
Academic profession in knowledge based society: defining a comparative
study (advisory board)
Professor Akira Arimoto (University of Hiroshima, Japan)
Professor Ulrich Teichler (Kassel University, Germany)
(Chair: Teresa Carvalho, University of Aveiro, Portugal)
16.00-16.30
Cofee break
16.30-18.30
The project on Formative Years and Career Transitions – National cases I
(Chair: Timo Aarrevaara, Finland)
19:30
Dinner
11 September
09.00-11.00
Meeting - The project on Formative Years and Career Transitions
(Chair: Leo Goedegebuure )
11.00-11.30
Coffee-break
11.30-13.00
Conceptual challenges in studying academic profession in contemporary
societies - The concepts of knowledge society and STEM
(Chair: Williams Cummings, George Washington University, USA)
13.00-14.00
Lunch
14.00-16.00
Comparative Methods
(Chair: Ulrich Teichler, Kassel University, Germany)
16:00-16:30
Coffee-Break
16:30-18:30
Meeting - Conceptual challenges in studying academic profession in
contemporary societies - The concepts of knowledge society and STEM
(Chair: Elizabeth Balbachevsky, USP, Brazil)
19.30
Dinner
12 September
9:00 -10:00
Meeting – Comparative Methods
(Chair: Jung Cheol Shin)
10:00 – 10:30
Coffe Break
10:30-12:30
Final session
Conclusions and preparation of Seoul seminar
Presentations of the three working group coordinators:
Conceptual group (Elizabeth Balbachevsky);
Method group (Timo Aarrevaara and Jung Cheol Shin) and
The Formative Years and Career Transitions (Leo Goedegebuure)
(Chair: Akira Arimoto, University of Hiroshima, Japão)
Deadlines
Proposals for presentations (10 minutes), on any of the three themes of the seminar, should
send the title and an abstract (150 words or less) to [email protected] or
[email protected] by 7th July 2015.
Participants
Country
Australia
Brazil
Finland
South Korea
Japan
Germany
Slovenia
Germany
Mozambique
Canada
Poland
Chile
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Argentina
Russia
Netherlands
Norway
Team members
Leo Goedegebuure
Tony Baker
Elizabeth Balbachevsky
Timo Aarrevaara
Jung C Shin
Akira Arimoto
Ulrich Teichler
Manja Klemencic
Alenka Flander
Christian Schneijderberg
Patrício Langa
Olivier Begin-Caouette
Marek Kwiek
Dominik Antonowicz
Daniela Véliz
Zaini
Monica Marquina
Sergio Ibeide
Maria Yudkevich
Andrea Kottmann
Erica Waagene
Eric James Iversen
Liv Langfeldt
Agnete Vabo
Mail
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected];
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Local organisers: Teresa Carvalho and Rui Santiago
Seminar’s Organizing Committee:
Elizabeth Balbachevsky
Timo Aarrevaara
Jung Cheol Shin