Knowledge production modes

Last updated

A knowledge productionmode is a term from the sociology of science which refers to the way (scientific) knowledge is produced. So far, three modes have been conceptualized. Mode 1 production of knowledge is knowledge production motivated by scientific knowledge alone (basic research) which is not primarily concerned by the applicability of its findings. Mode 1 is founded on a conceptualization of science as separated into discrete disciplines (e.g., a biologist does not bother about chemistry). Mode 2 was coined in 1994 in juxtaposition to Mode 1 by Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trow. [1] In Mode 2, multidisciplinary teams are brought together for short periods of time to work on specific problems in the real world for knowledge production (applied research) in the knowledge society. Mode 2 can be explained by the way research funds are distributed among scientists and how scientists focus on obtaining these funds in terms of five basic features: knowledge produced in the context of application; transdisciplinarity; heterogeneity and organizational diversity; social accountability and reflexivity; and quality control. [2] [3] Subsequently, Carayannis and Campbell described a Mode 3 knowledge in 2006. [4]

Contents

Development of the concept

Gibbons and colleagues argued that a new form of knowledge production began emerging in the mid-20th century that was context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary. It involved multidisciplinary teams that worked together for short periods of time on specific problems in the real world. Gibbons and his colleagues labelled this "Mode 2" knowledge production. He and his colleagues distinguished this from traditional research, labelled 'Mode 1', which is academic, investigator-initiated and discipline-based knowledge production. [1] [5] In support, Limoges wrote, "We now speak of 'context-driven' research, meaning 'research carried out in a context of application, arising from the very work of problem solving and not governed by the paradigms of traditional disciplines of knowledge." [6] John Ziman drew a similar distinction between academic science and post-academic science, [7] and in 2001 Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons extended their analysis to the implications of Mode 2 knowledge production for society. [8]

Conceptual differences between Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge

Mode 1 is characterized by theory building and testing within a discipline towards the aim of universal knowledge, while Mode 2 is characterized by knowledge produced for application. In the type of knowledge acquired, Mode 1 knowledge is universal law, primarily cognitive, while Mode 2 knowledge is particular and situational, and in Mode 1 data is context free but in Mode 2 contextually embedded. In Mode 1, the knowledge is validated by logic and measurement, together with consistency of prediction and control, while in Mode 2 knowledge is validated by experiential, collaborative, and transdisciplinary processes. In Mode 1, the researcher's role is to be a detached, neutral observer, while in Mode 2 the researcher is a socially accountable, immersed and reflexive actor or change agent. [5]

Mode 3

Carayannis and Campbell describe a Mode 3 knowledge, which emphasizes the coexistence and co-development of diverse knowledge and innovation modes, at the individual (micro or local), structural and organizational (meso or institutional), and systemic (macro or global) levels. It describes mutual interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge via concepts such as, at the micro level, creative milieus and entrepreneurs and employees, at the meso level, knowledge clusters, innovation networks, entrepreneurial universities, and academic firms, and at the macro level, the quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework, the "democracy of knowledge" (knowledge within a democratic system), and "democratic capitalism" (capitalism within a democratic system). [9] [10] [11]

Reception

While the theory of knowledge production modes and especially the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production have attracted considerable interest, the theory has not been universally accepted in the terms put forth by Gibbons and colleagues. Scholars in science policy studies have pointed to three types of problems with the concept of Mode 2: its empirical validity, its conceptual strength, and its political value. [12]

Concerning the empirical validity of the Mode 2 claims, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [13] argue that:

The so-called Mode 2 is not new; it is the original format of science (or art) before its academic institutionalization in the 19th century. Another question to be answered is why Mode 1 has arisen after Mode 2: the original organizational and institutional basis of science, consisting of networks and invisible colleges. Where have these ideas, of the scientist as the isolated individual and of science separated from the interests of society, come from? Mode 2 represents the material base of science, how it actually operates. Mode 1 is a construct, built upon that base in order to justify autonomy for science, especially in an earlier era when it was still a fragile institution and needed all the help it could get (references omitted).

Thus, Mode 1 is essentially a theoretical construct, not a description of actual scientific research, as the boundaries between different disciplines and "basic" and "applied research" have always been blurred. [14] In the same article, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [15] use the notion of the triple helix of the nation state (government), academia (university) and industry to explain innovation, the development of new technology and knowledge transfer. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff argue, "The Triple Helix overlay provides a model at the level of social structure for the explanation of Mode 2 as an historically emerging structure for the production of scientific knowledge, and its relation to Mode 1." [16]

Steve Fuller similarly criticized the "modists" view of the history of science because they wrongly give the impression that Mode 1 dates back to seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution whereas Mode 2 is traced to the end of either World War II or the Cold War, whereas in fact the two modes were institutionalized only within a generation of each other (the third and the fourth quarters of the nineteenth century, respectively). Fuller claims that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, jointly funded by the state, the industry and the universities, predated today's "triple helix" institutions by an entire century. [17]

Regarding the conceptual strength of Mode 2, it has been argued that the coherence of its five features is questionable, as there might be a lot of multi-disciplinary, application oriented research that does not show organizational diversity or novel types of quality control. [18] Moreover, Mode 2 lends itself to a normative reading, and authors have criticized the way Gibbons and his co-authors seem to blend descriptive and normative elements. According to Godin, the Mode 2 approach is more a political ideology than a descriptive theory. [19] Similarly, Shinn complains: "Instead of theory or data, the New Production of Knowledge—both book and concept—seems tinged with political commitment". [20]

Applications to academic research

One of the fields which has implemented mode-based knowledge production research most enthusiastically is that of management and organization studies. MacLean, MacIntosh and Grant offer a review of Mode 2 management research, [21] while MacIntosh, Bonnet, and Eikeland review the ways in which Mode 2-influenced management research has an impact on the lives of those working in organizations; [22] Mode 2's implications have also been considered in terms of business processes [23] The role of the different knowledge production modes has been considered in diverse fields, for example evidence-based policy making, [24] fisheries, [25] entrepreneurship and innovation, [26] medical research, [27] science diplomacy, [28] sustainability science, [29] and working life research. [30]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simon; Scott, Peter; Trow, Martin (2010). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (PDF). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446221853. ISBN   978-0-8039-7794-5.
  2. ↑ Gibbons, Michael; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simon; Scott, Peter; Trow, Martin A. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-0803977938. OCLC   32093699.
  3. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G.; Barth, Thorsten D.; Campbell, David F. J. (2012-08-08). "The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation". Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 1 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 . hdl: 10419/78609 . ISSN   2192-5372.
  4. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F. J. (2006). "'Mode 3': Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective". Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters : a comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe, and Asia. Praeger Publishers. pp. 1–25. ISBN   0-313-08323-1. OCLC   70209391.
  5. 1 2 "Mode 1 and Mode 2 Knowledge Production", The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2014, doi:10.4135/9781446294406.n236, ISBN   978-1-84920-027-1
  6. ↑ Limoges, Camille (1996). "L'université à la croisée des chemins : une mission à affirmer, une gestion à réformer.". Le Lien formation-recherche à l'université : les pratiques aujourd'hui : colloque avril 1996. Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences. pp. 14–15. ISBN   2-550-30747-X. OCLC   757564594.
  7. ↑ Ziman, John (2000-04-27). Real Science. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541391. ISBN   978-0-521-77229-7.
  8. ↑ Nowotny, Helga. (2001). Re-thinking science : knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Scott, Peter, 1946-, Gibbons, Michael, 1939-. Cambridge, UK: Polity. ISBN   0-7456-2607-6. OCLC   46687537.
  9. ↑ Peris-Ortiz, Marta; Ferreira, João; Farinha, Luís; Fernandes, Nuno (2016-05-27). "Introduction to Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness". Multiple helix ecosystems for sustainable competitiveness. Cham: Springer. pp. 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29677-7. ISBN   978-3-319-29677-7. OCLC   950971633.
  10. ↑ Del Giudice, Manlio; Carayannis, Elias G.; Peruta, Maria Rosaria Della (2011-11-09), "Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management and Open Innovation Diplomacy: The Conceptual Understanding of Knowledge and Innovation", Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management, Springer New York, pp. 137–152, doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2089-7_11, ISBN   978-1-4614-2088-0
  11. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G. (2015). "Foreword". Knowledge Sharing in Chinese Hospitals Identifying Sharing Barriers in Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Collaboration. Springer. pp. vi. ISBN   978-3-662-51575-4. OCLC   959986646.
  12. ↑ Hessels, Laurens K.; van Lente, Harro (May 2008). "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda". Research Policy. 37 (4): 740–760. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008. ISSN   0048-7333.
  13. ↑ Etzkowitz, Henry; Leydesdorff, Loet (2000). "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations". Research Policy. 29 (2): 116. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4. ISSN   0048-7333.
  14. ↑ Edwards, Richard; Usher, Robin (2000-07-07), "Virtual research in performative times", Research and Knowledge at Work, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780203461358.ch14, ISBN   978-0-415-21337-0
  15. ↑ Etzkowitz, Henry; Leydesdorff, Loet (2000). "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations". Research Policy. 29 (2): 111. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4. ISSN   0048-7333.
  16. ↑ Etzkowitz, Henry; Leydesdorff, Loet (2000). "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations". Research Policy. 29 (2): 118. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4. ISSN   0048-7333.
  17. ↑ Fuller, Steve, 1959- (2000). "5". The governance of science : ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN   0-335-20235-7. OCLC   41932554.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  18. ↑ Rip, Arie; Elzinga, Aant (2002). "Science for the 21st Century". The Future of the sciences and humanities : four analytical essays and a critical debate on the future of scholastic endeavour. McAllister, James W. (James William), 1962-, Tindemans, Peter A. J., 1947-, Verrijn Stuart, A. A., Visser, Robert Paul Willem. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ISBN   978-90-485-0366-7. OCLC   302363448.
  19. ↑ Godin, Benoît (1998). "Writing Performative History". Social Studies of Science. 28 (3): 465–483. doi:10.1177/030631298028003004. ISSN   0306-3127. S2CID   143765698.
  20. ↑ Shinn, Terry (2002-08-01). "The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology". Social Studies of Science. 32 (4): 604. doi:10.1177/030631202128967271. ISSN   0306-3127.
  21. ↑ MacLean, D.; MacIntosh, R.; Grant, S. (2002-12-01). "Mode 2 Management Research". British Journal of Management. 13 (3): 189–207. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00237. ISSN   1467-8551.
  22. ↑ Eikeland, Olav (2007). "From epistemology to gnoseology – understanding the knowledge claims of action research". Management Research News. 30 (5): 344–358. doi:10.1108/01409170710746346. ISSN   0140-9174.
  23. ↑ Veit, Douglas Rafael; Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco; Camargo, Luis Felipe Riehs; Kipper, Liane Mahlmann; Dresch, Aline (2017-04-03). "Towards Mode 2 knowledge production". Business Process Management Journal. 23 (2): 293–328. doi:10.1108/bpmj-03-2016-0045. ISSN   1463-7154.
  24. ↑ Zapp, Mike; Powell, Justin J. W. (2017-01-12). "Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany". Science and Public Policy: scw091. doi:10.1093/scipol/scw091. ISSN   0302-3427. S2CID   54064522.
  25. ↑ Msomphora, Mbachi Ruth (2016-03-30). "The role of science in fisheries management in Europe: from Mode 1 to Mode 2". Maritime Studies. 15 (1). doi: 10.1186/s40152-016-0042-4 . hdl: 10037/10330 . ISSN   2212-9790.
  26. ↑ Stamati, Dimitra; Meissner, Dirk; Campbell, David F.J.; Carayannis, Elias G.; Grigoroudis, Evangelos (2018). "'Mode 3' universities and academic firms: thinking beyond the box trans-disciplinarity and nonlinear innovation dynamics within coopetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems". International Journal of Technology Management. 77 (1/2/3): 145. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2018.10012938. ISSN   0267-5730.
  27. ↑ Soofi, Hojjat (2017-12-11). "Mode 2 Knowledge Production in the Context of Medical Research: A Call for Further Clarifications". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 15 (1): 23–27. doi:10.1007/s11673-017-9822-9. ISSN   1176-7529. PMID   29230698. S2CID   4793505.
  28. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F. J. (2011). "Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the "Mode 3" Knowledge Production System". Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2 (3): 327–372. doi:10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3. ISSN   1868-7865. S2CID   153833947.
  29. ↑ Thorén, Henrik; Breian, Line (April 2016). "Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 56: 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.002. ISSN   1369-8486. PMID   26686900.
  30. ↑ Håkansta, Carin; Jacob, Merle (2015-12-18). "Mode 2 and the Tension Between Excellence and Utility: The Case of a Policy-Relevant Research Field in Sweden". Minerva. 54 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11024-015-9288-z. ISSN   0026-4695. S2CID   254835209.

Related Research Articles

Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, and Maire Tecnimont Chair of Open Innovation at Luiss.

Technology trajectory refers to a single branch in the evolution of a technological design of a product/service, with nodes representing separate designs. With Technology trajectory referring to a single branch we do expect the development of new technologies to precede recent uses and advance future technologies. The development of future technologies allows for the innovation of new ideas, research, and much more. It also can be defined as the paths by which innovations in a given field occur.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Helga Nowotny</span> Austrian sociologist

Helga Nowotny is Professor emeritus of Social Studies of Science, ETH Zurich. She has held numerous leadership roles on Academic boards and public policy councils, and she has authored many publications in the social studies of science and technology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Sciences Citation Index</span> Citation index product of Clarivate Analytics

The Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) is a commercial citation index product of Clarivate Analytics. It was originally developed by the Institute for Scientific Information from the Science Citation Index. The Social Sciences Citation Index is a multidisciplinary index which indexes over 3,400 journals across 58 social science disciplines – 1985 to present, and it has 122 million cited references – 1900 to present. It also includes a range of 3,500 selected items from some of the world's finest scientific and technical journals. It has a range of useful search functions such as 'cited reference searching', searching by author, subject, or title. Whilst the Social Sciences Citation Index provides extensive support in bibliographic analytics and research, a number of academic scholars have expressed criticisms relating to ideological bias and its English-dominant publishing nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loet Leydesdorff</span>

Louis André (Loet) Leydesdorff was a Dutch sociologist, cyberneticist, communication scientist and Professor in the Dynamics of Scientific Communication and Technological Innovation at the University of Amsterdam. He is known for his work in the sociology of communication and innovation, especially for his Triple helix model of innovation developed with Henry Etzkowitz in the 1990s.

An academic discipline or academic field is a subdivision of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or university level. Disciplines are defined and recognized by the academic journals in which research is published, and the learned societies and academic departments or faculties within colleges and universities to which their practitioners belong. Academic disciplines are conventionally divided into the humanities, the scientific disciplines, the formal sciences like mathematics and computer science, the social sciences are sometimes considered a four category.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italy–Pakistan relations</span> Bilateral relations

The term Italy–Pakistan relations refers to bilateral relations between the Republic of Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The nations have cordial relations.

Co-production is an approach in the development and delivery of public services and technology in which citizens and other key stakeholders and concepts in human society are implicitly involved in the process. In many countries, co-production is increasingly perceived as a new public administration paradigm as it involves a whole new thinking about public service delivery and policy development. In co-productive approaches, citizens are not only consulted, but are part of the conception, design, steering, and ongoing management of services. The concept has a long history, arising out of radical theories of knowledge in the 1970s, and can be applied in a range of sectors across society including health research, and science more broadly.

Science-to-business marketing entails the marketing of research conducted at research institutions, particularly universities, to industry or other interested parties. The acronym S2B follows a series of marketing acronyms used to shorten and popularise marketing specialisations, including (B2C) and (B2B).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caroline S. Wagner</span>

Caroline S. Wagner is an American academic and author specializing in public policy related to science, technology, and innovation. As of 2011, Wagner holds the endowed chair in international affairs named for Milton A. Wolf and Roslyn Z. Wolf at the John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sari Hanafi</span>

Sari Hanafi is currently a professor of sociology at the American University of Beirut and chair of the Islamic Studies program. He is the president of the International Sociological Association and also the editor of Idafat: the Arab Journal of Sociology (Arabic). In 2018, Hanafi founded "Athar", the Portal for Social impact of scientific research in/on the Arab world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Learning alliance</span>

A learning alliance is a diverse network of individuals committed to improving knowledge on a specific research topic. Learning alliances are often made up of small networks of public, private and/or civil society actors seeking to further social or political change.

The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a bibliographic database and citation index managed by Clarivate in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Sensitivity auditing is an extension of sensitivity analysis for use in policy-relevant modelling studies. Its use is recommended - i.a. in the European Commission Impact assessment guidelines and by the European Science Academies- when a sensitivity analysis (SA) of a model-based study is meant to demonstrate the robustness of the evidence provided by the model in the context whereby the inference feeds into a policy or decision-making process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filipe Teles</span> Political scientist

Filipe Teles is a political scientist and associate professor in the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, where he teaches courses in the fields of public policy and political science. He is acting as Prorector for Regional Development and Urban Policies at the University.

Industry funding of academic research in the United States is one of the two major sources of research funding in academia along with government support. Currently, private funding of research accounts for the majority of all research and development funding in the United States as of 2007 overall. Overall, Federal and Industrial sources contribute similar amounts to research, while industry funds the vast majority of development work.

The triple helix model of innovation refers to a set of interactions between academia, industry and government, to foster economic and social development, as described in concepts such as the knowledge economy and knowledge society. In innovation helical framework theory, each sector is represented by a circle (helix), with overlapping showing interactions. The initial modelling has advanced from two dimensions to show more complex interactions, for example over time. The framework was first theorized by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1990s, with the publication of "The Triple Helix, University-Industry-Government Relations: A laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development". Interactions between universities, industries and governments have given rise to new intermediary institutions, such as technology transfer offices and science parks, and Etzkowitz and Ledersdorff theorized the relationship between the three sectors and explained the emergence of these new hybrid organizations. The triple helix innovation framework has been widely adopted and as applied by policy makers has participated in the transformation of each sector.

The quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework describes university-industry-government-public-environment interactions within a knowledge economy. In innovation helix framework theory, first developed by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff and used in innovation economics and theories of knowledge, such as the knowledge society and the knowledge economy, each sector is represented by a circle (helix), with overlapping showing interactions. The quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework was co-developed by Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell, with the quadruple helix being described in 2009 and the quintuple helix in 2010. Various authors were exploring the concept of a quadruple helix extension to the triple helix model of innovation around the same time. The Carayannis and Campbell quadruple helix model incorporates the public via the concept of a 'media-based democracy', which emphasizes that when the political system (government) is developing innovation policy to develop the economy, it must adequately communicate its innovation policy with the public and civil society via the media to obtain public support for new strategies or policies. In the case of industry involved in R&D, the framework emphasizes that companies' public relations strategies have to negotiate ‘reality construction’ by the media. The quadruple and quintuple helix framework can be described in terms of the models of knowledge that it extends and by five subsystems (helices) that it incorporates; in a quintuple helix-driven model, knowledge and know-how are created and transformed, and circulate as inputs and outputs in a way that affects the natural environment. Socio-ecological interactions via the quadruple and quintuple helices can be utilized to define opportunities for the knowledge society and knowledge economy, such as innovation to address sustainable development, including climate change.

Elias G. Carayannis is a Greek-American economist who is presently a full Professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the George Washington University School of Business in Washington, D.C.

<i>Research Policy</i> (journal) Academic Journal

Research Policy is a monthly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Elsevier on behalf of the Science Policy Research Unit. It was established by British economist Christopher Freeman in 1971 and is regarded as the leading journal in the field of innovation studies. It is listed as one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times to compile its business-school research ranks.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.