Search results

The current landscape of management scholarship faces criticism for prioritising theoretical development over practical relevance, leading to a disconnect between academic research and industry practices or applications. By exploring Pavitt’s work, the authors aim to highlight the importance of contextual understanding in innovation processes and to advocate for recognising diverse scholarly contributions that challenge established norms. A pragmatic theorist and mentor to a whole generation of innovation science and policy scholars worldwide, especially in Europe, Keith Pavitt left a legacy that is insufficiently acknowledged. Ultimately, this paper seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to defend an innovation management that is responsive to contemporary organisational challenges.

The authors review the most relevant works by Keith Pavitt as a practitioner and as a “pragmatic theorist” and his network of author relationships, including all papers, special issues and reports published after his passing. Then, the authors discuss how those seminal papers or reports have been used and could be used in the future. This paper argues for a balanced approach that integrates rigorous academic inquiry with practical insights, emphasising the contributions of Keith Pavitt as a pioneering figure in Innovation-as-Practice.

The authors highlight that much of the current understanding of science and policy of innovation can be traced back to Pavitt’s work and that many future debates about technology could be enhanced by considering his findings. He has the stature of a parental figure, and his taxonomy, based on practice and empirical data, much like other management analysis tools, is widely used but not widely recognised yet, especially by industry managers or employees.

This paper sheds new light on an unacknowledged transdisciplinary pioneer, whose work is situated at the intersection of theory and praxis in Innovation Management: Keith Pavitt. It also advocates for a more transdisciplinary and circumstantial historical approach to management scholars.

Purpose: This chapter explores the role of advanced control systems in Industry 5.0, focusing on their potential to enhance human–robot collaboration (HRC) and intelligent manufacturing. The research investigates how these systems can optimize interactions between humans and robots, leading to improved efficiency and safety in manufacturing environments.

Need for the study: The transition to Industry 5.0 necessitates a balance between human creativity and automation. This study addresses the need for advanced control systems that not only enhance efficiency but also align with the human-centric principles of Industry 5.0. It aims to fill the knowledge gap by examining the integration of these systems in collaborative human–robot settings.

Methodology: The research involves a comprehensive literature review and analysis of recent advancements in control systems within the Industry 5.0 context. Case studies and theoretical frameworks are employed to illustrate how these systems improve human–robot interactions (HRIs), drawing from practical experiences and academic research.

Findings: Advanced control systems significantly enhance the accuracy, safety, and efficiency of HRIs. Through predictive algorithms and real-time data analytics, these systems enable robots to adapt to human inputs, minimizing risks and maximizing productivity. The research also highlights the effectiveness of technologies like artificial intelligence (AI)-driven predictive control, adaptive robotics, and sensor integration in improving human–robot interfaces.

Practical implications: Integrating advanced control systems offers practical benefits such as improved operational efficiency, reduced downtime, and enhanced worker safety. These benefits enable industries to align their technological infrastructure with Industry 5.0 principles. The insights gained can also guide policymakers and industry leaders in developing regulations and standards for intelligent manufacturing technologies.

The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production through research activities “other than” those directly focused on making progress with their own, to-be-published, research papers in a context associated with the “publish or perish” (PoP) mentality.

Drawing broadly on the notion of technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), this reflective essay develops upon the experiences of the authors in organizing and participating in a series of nine workshops undertaken between June 2013 and April 2021, as well as the arduous process of writing this paper itself. Retrospective accounts, workshop materials, email exchanges and surveys of workshop participants provide the key data sources for the analysis presented in the paper.

The paper shows how the organization of the workshops is intertwined with the building of a small community of ECRs and exploration of how to address the perceived limitations of a “gap-spotting” approach to developing research ideas and questions. The analysis foregrounds how the workshops provide a seemingly valuable research experience that is not without contradictions. Workshop participation reveals tensions between engagement in activities “other than” working on papers for publication and institutionalized pressures to produce publication outputs, between the (weak) perceived status of ECRs in the field and the aspiration to make a scholarly contribution, and between the desire to develop a personally satisfying intellectual journey and the pressure to respond to requirements that allow access to a wider community of scholars.

Our analysis contributes to debates about the ways in which seemingly valuable outputs are produced in academia despite a pervasive “publish or perish” mentality. The analysis also shows how reflexive writing can help to better understand the opportunities and challenges of pursuing activities that might be considered “unproductive” because they are not directly related to to-be-published papers.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate general strain theory and procedural justice in the context of research misconduct in university settings.

Drawing on media accounts and past research, the authors present data on the financial costs of research misconduct to universities and identify graduate school processes as a possible source of strain may lead to misconduct. Relevant research on procedural justice in organizational settings is also examined.

The available literature suggests that the use of procedurally just practices will help reduce strain, and in doing so, potentially prevent research misconduct in university settings. The authors present an integrated theoretical model that can be tested in future empirical studies of research misconduct and other forms of white-collar crime in universities. Directions for future theoretically informed research are discussed, along with recommendations for graduate program administrators.

Research misconduct causes significant financial and reputational costs to universities. While past research focuses on mentoring and training for preventing misconduct by graduate students, this study argues that the use of fair evaluations and other procedurally just processes is also important.