Suchergebnisse

This paper explains the institutional logics of academia, and of practitioners within industry and government, as well as the alignment and misalignment that occurs when these actors collaborate. This is achieved by building on the theories on alignment and misalignment and institutional logics, whilst conducting an explorative case study of a circular economy cluster from the Tampere Region of Finland. This paper offers three main contributions: First, convergence and divergence of institutional logics by industry, government, and academic actors can lead to alignment and misalignment at three levels: actor-type, relationship, and system levels. Second, partial alignment and misalignment are found to be in-between modes of alignment, which challenges the idea that alignment and misalignment are dichotomous. Instead, alignment and misalignment should be seen as the two ends of a continuum. Third, alignment and misalignment are dynamic by nature, because institutional logics change and modify during collaboration. For practice, this paper gives advice on how collaboration between academia and practitioners can be advanced to achieve alignment and avoid misalignment. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

This paper explains the institutional logics of academia, and of practitioners within industry and government, as well as the alignment and misalignment that occurs when these actors collaborate. This is achieved by building on the theories on alignment and misalignment and institutional logics, whilst conducting an explorative case study of a circular economy cluster from the Tampere Region of Finland. This paper offers three main contributions: First, convergence and divergence of institutional logics by industry, government, and academic actors can lead to alignment and misalignment at three levels: actor-type, relationship, and system levels. Second, partial alignment and misalignment are found to be in-between modes of alignment, which challenges the idea that alignment and misalignment are dichotomous. Instead, alignment and misalignment should be seen as the two ends of a continuum. Third, alignment and misalignment are dynamic by nature, because institutional logics change and modify during collaboration. For practice, this paper gives advice on how collaboration between academia and practitioners can be advanced to achieve alignment and avoid misalignment.