Digitalization is causing organizations and their members to reflect and rethink their knowledge bases and needs, as well as organizational forms and means for staying competitive. For professional service firms (PSFs), this is especially challenging as they rely on—and offer their clients—professional expertise that builds on a well-defined domain of knowledge and professional jurisdiction. In this article, we explore how two classic, elite PSFs organize to learn about digital technologies residing outside their organizational and professional boundaries. Building on the literature on ambidextrous learning, we find that they do so by adapting to learn, that is, starting innovation labs aimed at explorative learning. This also enables them to learn to adapt, meaning that they develop abilities to dynamically adapt to contextual changes. Based on our analysis we develop three propositions for what aspects influence how PSFs organize for structural and/or contextual ambidexterity. We contribute to the theorizing of how PSFs can organize to encourage ambidextrous learning and digital innovation while at the same time protecting the professional core and organizational culture and reputation.

Arrangements for collaboration in knowledge production across academia, government, non-governmental organisations, and corporations have several names, such as citizen-science, community-based participatory research, engaged research and hybrid forums. The multiplicity of schemes does not lie only in the high number of names for various versions of collaborative knowledge production. Different scholars also use concepts in multiple ways, depending on their individual choices, mother disciplines, and the problem area in which collaboration occurs. At the same time, there is a lack of analytical tools that address the full range of collaborative research schemes and provide a systematic set of questions to learn about the schemes, challenges, and opportunities. Based on our review of academic journal articles highlighting collaborative research schemes, this paper aims to analyse three parameters which it is fair to say that virtually all arrangements of collaborative knowledge production ought to consider when making decisions, parameters that are often partially missed or misunderstood: (A) epistemic-procedural, (B) exclusive-inclusive and (C) aggregative-integrative. By examining the three parameters, their political theory origins, and how they connect to and challenge existing schemes of knowledge collaboration, we provide analytical tools that could facilitate processes of developing and scrutinising arrangements of collaborative research. 

This essay takes a starting point in the well-known tension between the media logic and the scientific logic and the challenges when communicating science in a mediatized society. Building on the experience of engaging in research comics, both as a method for communicating science and a creative example of a meeting between science and art, we introduce a framework — a pedagogical tool — for how science communication can be understood through the two competing logics. We contribute to literature about the balancing act of being a ‘legitimate expert’ and a ‘visible scientist’, and suggest that the meeting between science and art can be understood as a lens for how to communicate science that goes beyond the deficit model.

En berättelse om organisering blandar organisationsteorins grunder med berättelsen om modeföretaget Mess. Genom skildringen av människorna och händelserna i och runt företaget ser vi framgångar, konflikter och utmaningar i organisationsteorins ljus. Mötet mellan den fiktiva berättelsen och organisationsteorins grundläggande teman ger en förståelse för vad en organisation är och vad organisering betyder – och vilken betydelse det har för att förstå vårt samhälle. I den här andra upplagan har boken kortats och omdisponerats så att några av de tidigare temana har vävts samman med de övriga. För att komplettera och stärka berättelsen om Mess har exempel – både från praktiken och från aktuell forskning – genomgående uppdaterats.

Policymakers increasingly emphasize knowledge collaboration between academia and society as important means to generate innovations and solve complex issues. However, while recent literature on such collaboration suggests that knowledge needs to be integrated and generated across disciplines and sectors, there are surprisingly few studies that define what is meant by ‘knowledge’ or focus on the process of generating knowledge. Subsequently, the aim of this paper is to unbox ‘knowledge’ in knowledge collaboration by focusing specifically on how knowledge is understood by heterogenous actors during the process of generating knowledge. We build on insights from an in-depth case study and contribute to the literature on knowledge collaboration by bringing in theory on boundary work that specifically addresses the knowledge generation process. We argue that to better meet the expectations of collaboration, there is a need for more discussions and focus on the participating stakeholders’ heterogenous epistemological as well as ontological understanding.

Det finns en förväntan om att forskare ska samverka i samförstånd med det omgivande samhället för att lösa komplexa problem. Kunskapssamverkan är dock en process som bara delvis präglas av konsensus. När aktörer från olika sfärer möts för att utveckla ny kunskap är det också viktigt att värna sin särart. I detta häfte undersöks och diskuteras hur kunskapssamverkan rotad i vetenskaplig verksamhet kan – och bör – organiseras genom både samråd och förhandling.

In this essay, we explore what happens when science meets comic art and how such meeting offers an opportunity to rethink science communication. We base our discussion on our own experience, as research scholars, of engaging in a collaboration with a comic artist. Three key reflections are developed: how comic art may help to (1) conceptualize ideas in an early research phase, (2) clarify the main argument by making the (un)written word visible; and (3) communicate science with an open end. These aspects contribute to an increased understanding of science communication in both research and society.