Knowledge corruption and governance in academic knowledge‐intensive organizations: The case of molecular mutations research

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1698
• Author: Ellie Okada
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Date: 01 February 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Knowledge corruption and governance in academic knowledge‐

intensive organizations: The case of molecular mutations

research

Ellie Okada

Senior Fellow at Boston Cancer Policy

Institute, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA

Correspondence

Ellie Okada, Senior Fellow at Boston Cancer

Policy Institute, 421 Somerville Avenue, 1‐A,

Somerville, MA 02143, USA.

Email: ellieokada@cancerpolicyinstitute.org

This paper aims to understand (a) what factors make academic knowledge‐intensive organizations

(KIOs) susceptible to knowledge corruption and (b) when and how academic KIOs should intro-

duce external governance of interdisciplinary academic knowledge production to ensure outcome

quality. This study investigates molecular mutation research as an example of a body of research

in which KIOs worked together with commercially motivated organizations and where this

altered “ownership”claims made academic scientists less likely to focus on the truth. The paper

presents propositions and hypotheses and conducts a retrospective study. The results contribute

to governance frameworks of KIOs by providing evidence that questions into the prevailing

arrangements for the academic science. Governance principles to be applied include the need

for an overarching governance framework in which a field‐specific open approach with a method-

ological underpinning help to reduce corruptive forces.

1|INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to understand (a) what factors make academic

knowledge‐intensive organizations (KIOs) susceptible to knowledge

corruption and (b) when and how academic KIOs should introduce

external governance of interdisciplinary knowledge production in

order to ensure outcome quality. This study is based on the man-

agement framework of KIOs that have developed as a result of con-

cepts introduced by knowledge‐intensive or professional service

firms (Anand, Gardner, & Morris, 2007; Bettencourt, Ostrom,

Brown, & Roundtree, 2002; Choi & Millar, 2005; den Hertog, 2000;

Hinings, Muzio, Broschak, & Empson, 2015; von Nordenflycht,

2010).

1

In pursuing the above aims, this study introduces normative

(Radder, 2010; Kunneman, 2010; Anderson, Ronning, De Vries, &

Martinson, 2010; Wissenschaftsrat, 2015; Merton, 1942) and insti-

tutional (Whitley, 2000; Ziman, 2000) components of academic sci-

ences to the governance framework of KIOs. The paper presents

propositions and hypotheses and conducts a retrospective study.

The results contribute to the governance frameworks of KIOs by

providing evidence that questions into the prevailing arrangements

for the academic science. As issues are arising from the compro-

mised relations of organizations and disciplines, they should be

addressed through governance. Here, governance is defined as the

management of relations and boundaries (cf. Choi, Hilton, & Millar,

2004, p. 25; Scherer & Leblebici, 2015). Governance principles that

should be applied include an overarching governance framework in

which a field‐specific open approach with a methodological under-

pinning help to reduce corruptive forces.

Academics create knowledge in an environment of institutional

objectivity, where they are free from bias and value judgments (Reiss

& Sprenger, 2017). They receive recognition on the basis of their con-

tributions to disciplinary knowledge, which helps to further knowledge

production by other academics (this process can be tracked through

citation networks). They also receive recognition through directing

others' endeavors along particular lines (a peer‐review system; Whitley,

2000). Trusteeship governance (Scherer & Leblebici, 2015;

von Nordenflycht, 2010, p. 169) and self‐regulation of science (Resnik,

2008; Ziman, 2000) support this system. Within this framework, the

involvement of outside or commercially motivated organizations

is regarded as a threat to preserving trusteeship behaviors

(von Nordenflycht, 2010, p. 169).

Meanwhile, university reforms (Christensen, 2011) and

renegotiated social contracts (Gibbons, 1999; Nowotny, Scott, &

Gibbons, 2001) have encouraged knowledge cocreation with industry

and outside entities by both expanding knowledge boundaries

(Nowotny et al., 2001) and introducing ownership claims for knowl-

edge. This altered form of ownership introduced outside legitimacies

and mixed governance (Kunneman, 2010; Radder, 2010), which can

1

Although academic institutions are not for profit, they are included in the cate-

gory of KIOs because knowledge is their main production factor and the good

they offer (see European Commission, 2012, p. 6).

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1698

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1698.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1698

Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of11