Researchers are increasingly expected to deliver ‘‘socially robust knowledge’’ that is not only scientifically reliable but also takes into account demands from societal actors. This article focuses on an empirical example where these additional criteria are explicitly organized into research settings. We investigate how the multiple ‘‘accountabilities’’ are managed in such ‘‘responsive research settings.’’ This article provides an empirical account of such an organizational format: the Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health. We present a cross-case analysis of four collaborative research projects conducted within this context. We build on (and extend) Miller’s notion of ‘‘hybrid management.’’ The article shows that the extended concept of hybrid management is useful to study the different accountabilities encountered in such settings. We analyze how the collaboration developed and which conflicts or dilemmas arose. We then focus on the different hybrid management strategies used in the collaboration. The empirical material shows how the different aspects of hybrid management feature in various configurations in the four projects. We highlight that hybrid management strategies may be used by different groups or at different moments, may reinforce or contradict each other, and may be more or less effective at different points in time.

, , , , ,
doi.org/10.1177/0162243913497807, hdl.handle.net/1765/50421
Science, Technology & Human Values
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM)

Wehrens, R.L.E, Bekker, M.P.M, & Bal, R.A. (2014). Hybrid Management Configurations in Joint Research. Science, Technology & Human Values, 39(1), 6–41. doi:10.1177/0162243913497807