The mixed blessing of Mode 2 knowledge production

Source: OAI

ABSTRACT The notion of Mode 2 knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al. 2001) already has a remarkable history. It was launched fifteen years ago to capture the ongoing changes in the world of science, science policy and the knowledge economy at large. While it is not the only attempt to make sense of the change, it definitively is the most popular. Since its publication in 1994, ‘The New Production of Knowledge’ (Gibbons et al. 1994), which has coined the notions of Mode 1 and Mode 2, has received almost 1900 citations in scientific journals . It is a blessing that it has helped both scholars and policymakers to get a grip on the profound changes going on in contemporary science systems. But the concept of Mode 2 knowledge production also proved to be a mixed blessing by creating confusion and by conflating interrelated yet independent trends.


Available from: Harro Van Lente, Jun 05, 2015
  • Source
    01/2012, Degree: PhD, Supervisor: João Barroso
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: La relación entre el mundo académico y las políticas públicas en América Latina y el Caribe (ALC) están siendo cada vez más demandadas por los desafíos que plantea el desarrollo sustentable. Para analizar esta temática necesitamos primero revisar la relación existente entre el mundo de las políticas públicas y las tareas del desarrollo, en el marco de las características que adquieren hoy tanto la Política Pública (PP) como la gobernanza ambiental. De esta manera podemos desarrollar la interacción existente e ideal entre el mundo de la academia y el mundo de las políticas públicas para finalizar proponiendo un nuevo paradigma en su relación colaborativa en la perspectiva de contribuir al desarrollo sustentable.
    I Cumbre Académica CELAC-UE; 01/2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Science, Technology & Human Values 01/2014; 39(1):6-41. DOI:10.1177/0162242913497807 · 2.41 Impact Factor