Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production

Research Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Re-thinking new knowledge production:A literature review and a research agenda

Laurens K. Hessels ∗, Harro van LenteCopernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University,

PO Box 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 2 October 2007; received in revised form 29 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2008Available online 11 March 2008

Abstract

This paper offers a systematic reflection on the Gibbons–Nowotny notion of ‘Mode 2 knowledge production’. We review its
reception in scientific literature and compare it with seven alternative diagnoses of changing science systems. The ‘Mode 2’ diagnosisidentifies a number of important trends that require further empirical efforts, but it suffers from severe conceptual problems. It istime to untie its five major constitutive claims and investigate each separately.© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schartzman,

Keywords: Mode 2; Transdisciplinarity; Heterogeneity; Relevance

1. Introduction

Science systems are said to be in transformation. Lasttwo decades various studies have pointed to a variety ofchanges, such as an increasing orientation of science sys-tems towards strategic goals (Irvine and Martin, 1984)and the production of relevant knowledge (Bohme et al.,1983; Gibbons et al., 1994). A variety of approachesto understand, explain, and, perhaps, extrapolate suchtrends have emerged, but none of them is uncontested.Probably the most famous account of a transformationis the concept of ‘Mode 2’ knowledge production. Thisnotion refers to a set of putative changes that are intro-duced in The New Production of Knowledge (Gibbons
et al., 1994). The book sketches the emergence of aresearch system that is highly interactive and ‘sociallydistributed’. The basic argument is that, while knowl-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 2537597; fax: +31 30 2532746.E-mail address: [email protected] (L.K. Hessels).

0048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008

edge production used to be located primarily in scientificinstitutions and structured by scientific disciplines, itslocations, practices and principles are now much moreheterogeneous. Mode 2 knowledge is produced ‘in thecontext of application’ by so-called transdisciplinarycollaborations. Moreover, scientists are more reflexiveand they operate according to different quality criteriawhen compared with the traditional disciplinary mode.The new mode of knowledge production has been coined‘Mode 2’, and it is not believed to replace Mode 1, butto supplement it.1 Table 1 gives a summary of the basicclaims in a well-known format.

In the decade since its launch by Michael Gibbons,

Peter Scott and Martin Trow, the ‘Mode 2’ concepthas gained an enormous visibility in the reflection on

1 ‘This new mode – Mode 2 – is emerging alongside the traditionaldisciplinary structure of science and technology—Mode 1’ (NPK, p.14).

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008

L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente / Researc

Table 1Attributes of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production

Mode 1 Mode 2

Academic context Context of applicationDisciplinary TransdisciplinaryHomogeneity HeterogeneityAutonomy Reflexivity/social accountabilityT

c2sistaWscedpai

itat21bdnTtawrtcoouv

E2

raditional qualitycontrol (peer review)

Novel quality control

ontemporary scientific practice. The notion of ‘Mode’ is referred to in over 1000 scientific articles2 andeems to have influenced science, technology andnnovation policies.3 During the same period, however,cholars have written numerous critical papers to contesthe claims and the use of the Mode 2 concept, some ontheoretical basis, others supported by empirical data.e think it is time for reconsideration of the idea of a

cience system in transformation and we will use thelaims and contestations of the Mode 2 concept as anntrance point. To what extent is this concept helpful inescribing and explaining current changes in scientificractice? What does it add to other approaches? Whatre the most relevant questions to address when one isnterested in the transformation of science systems?

We will follow two routes, one direct, and the otherndirect. First, the indirect route is to compare and con-rast the Mode 2 diagnosis with a number of alternativeccounts of current changes in scientific practice (Sec-ion 3), such as Triple Helix (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff,000), post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz,993) and strategic research (Rip, 2004). We will addressoth agreements and differences between ‘The New Pro-uction of Knowledge’ (NPK) – the book in which theotion of Mode 2 has been coined – and the alternatives.his step will make clear about which characteristics of

he science system the different diagnoses make claimsnd it will show to what extent the claims of NPK agreeith claims made by other authors. The second, direct

oute is to review and evaluate the numerous reactionso ‘The New Production of Knowledge’. After a dis-ussion of its general reception (Section 4), a numberf critical reactions are addressed (Section 5). The main
bjections that we found in the literature will be groupednder three headings: criticism regarding the empiricalalidity, the conceptual strength, and the political value
2 Scopus search on January 18, 2007.3 In Canada, for instance, the creation of Networks of Centre’s ofxcellence aimed at ‘facilitating Mode 2 networks’ (Fisher et al.,001).

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 741

of NPK. Consequently, the strong and weak points of theoriginal Mode 2 claims can be determined. We will con-clude with a statement about the strength and suitabilityof the Mode 2 concept and with a list of topics concern-ing the transformation of science systems that deservefurther study. First, however, we will summarise the twomain publications by the creators of the concept (Section2).

2. The new production of knowledge: Mode 2

The notion of Mode 2 knowledge production is coinedin The New Production of Knowledge (Gibbons et al.,1994). This volume constitutes the outcome of a col-laborative research project conducted by six prominentscholars in the field of science (policy) studies: MichaelGibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, SimonSchwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. The workwas originally commissioned by the Swedish Councilfor Research and Planning, FRN, aiming to get a viewon the future of universities.

The main proposition of the study is the emergenceof a knowledge production system that is ‘sociallydistributed’. While knowledge production used to belocated primarily at scientific institutions (universities,government institutes and industrial research labs) andstructured by scientific disciplines, its new locations,practices and principles are much more heterogeneous.To clarify this assertion the authors introduce a distinc-tion between Mode 1 knowledge production, which hasalways existed, and Mode 2 knowledge production, anew mode that is emerging next to it and is becomingmore and more dominant. Five main attributes of Mode2 summarise how it differs from Mode 1 (see Table 1).

First, Mode 2 knowledge is generated in a contextof application. Of course, Mode 1 knowledge can alsoresult in practical applications, but these are always sep-arated from the actual knowledge production in spaceand time. This gap requires a so-called knowledge trans-fer. In Mode 2, such a distinction does not exist. Asecond characteristic of Mode 2 is transdisciplinarity,which refers to the mobilisation of a range of theoret-ical perspectives and practical methodologies to solveproblems. Transdisciplinarity goes beyond interdisci-plinarity in the sense that the interaction of scientificdisciplines is much more dynamic. Once theoreticalconsensus is attained, it cannot easily be reduced to dis-ciplinary parts. In addition, research results diffuse (to
problem contexts and practitioners) during the processof knowledge production. Thirdly, Mode 2 knowledge isproduced in a diverse variety of organisations, resultingin a very heterogeneous practice. The range of poten-

Researc
742 L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente /
tial sites for knowledge generation includes not onlythe traditional universities, institutes and industrial labs,but also research centres, government agencies, think-tanks, high-tech spin-off companies and consultancies.These sites are linked through networks of communi-cation and research is conducted in mutual interaction.The fourth attribute is reflexivity. Compared to Mode1, Mode 2 knowledge is rather a dialogic process, andhas the capacity to incorporate multiple views. Thisrelates to researchers becoming more aware of the soci-etal consequences of their work (‘social accountability’).Sensitivity to the impact of the research is built in fromthe start. Novel forms of quality control constitute thefifth characteristic of the new production of knowl-edge. Traditional discipline-based peer review systemsare supplemented by additional criteria of economic,political, social or cultural nature. Due to the wider setof quality criteria, it becomes more difficult to deter-mine ‘good science’, since this no longer is limited tothe judgement of disciplinary peers. However, this doesnot imply that Mode 2 research is generally of a lowerstandard.

In order to emphasize the width of the transforma-tions, the authors of NPK (Gibbons et al., 1994) describea number of developments in which they are visible suchas the commercialization of knowledge, the massifica-tion of higher education and the increasing importance ofcollaboration and globalisation. The book also includeschapters on the case of the humanities and on the insti-tutional changes that are involved in the rise of Mode 2knowledge production.

In 2001, three of the authors of NPK published asecond book: Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and thePublic in an Age of Uncertainty (Nowotny et al., 2001).4

It can be read as a reaction to some of the criticisms thatNPK has received. The authors of ‘Re-thinking Science’elaborate the claims about Mode 2 in three directions.

Firstly, Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons relate theirarguments to sociological literature. They discuss twoaccounts of social change that deal with the growth ofcomplexity of society: the Knowledge Society and theRisk Society. They compare the two along a number ofparameters and relate them to the notion of Mode 2. Inaddition, the authors relate their work to literature about
post-modernism and co-evolution.
Secondly, ‘Re-thinking Science’ extends the argu-ment of Mode 2 beyond the boundaries of the science

4 In this paper we will use the definitions of Modes 1 and 2 as givenin NPK and we will primarily analyse the reactions that this book hasreceived.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

system. Expanding its meaning, the term Mode 2, hererefers to a society consisting of ‘transgressive’ institu-tions. In a post-modern fashion, the book argues thatcurrently a de-differentiation of the various societalspheres (state, market, culture) is taking place. These areincreasingly fuzzy and blurring categories that overlapand interact. According to Nowotny et al. this develop-ment constitutes the background against which the shifttowards Mode 2 knowledge production takes place.

Thirdly, the authors make attempts to specify thenature of new scientific practices and discuss addi-tional observations of contemporary scientific practice.They describe changes they perceive in various institu-tions involved in knowledge production: industrial andgovernmental research institutes, research councils anduniversities. In particular they introduce the conceptof ‘contextualised science’ which basically means that‘society now “speaks back” to science’ (p. 50). Thisrefers to the demand for innovation, to new regulatoryregimes, and to the multiplication of user–producer inter-faces. Depending on the degree of importance, one canspeak of weak, middle range, or strong contextualisa-tion. This development affects scientific activity not onlyon the organisational level, but also ‘in its epistemolog-ical core’ (p. 94). The authors claim that Mode 2 (orcontextualised) research yields ‘socially robust knowl-edge’, which has a different epistemological status thanMode 1 science. Perhaps surprisingly, the participationof a wider range of non-scientific actors in the knowledgeproduction process enhances its reliability.

3. Mode 2 and its alternatives

The Mode 2 diagnosis is popular, visible and con-tested, but not unique: it appears amongst competingapproaches to study changes in the science system. Thefirst step in our reconsideration is a comparison witha set of alternatives, which we have identified in a lit-erature study5 (see Table 2). Each gives an accountof current changes in scientific knowledge productionand/or the changing relationship between science andsociety. We will briefly introduce each of them and dis-cuss the agreements and disagreements with the Mode
2 diagnosis. Please note that the order of appearance ischronological and does not reflect any judgement abouttheir relative importance. We will discuss the approachesin terms of their claims about cognitive changes, organi-
5 The bodies of literature addressed were selected based on theirprominence (number of citations) and the degree of apparent similaritywith NPK.

L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente / Research Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 743

Table 2Alternative diagnoses studied

Concept Aim (descriptive or prescriptive) Format ‘Main’ publication Number of citationsa

Finalisation science D / P Articles Bohme et al. (1983) 22Strategic research/strategic science D (P) Diverse Irvine and Martin (1984) 58Post-normal science P Articles Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) 204Innovation systems D / P Diverse Edquist (1997) 298Academic capitalism D Book Slaughter and Leslie (1997) 315P BT A

sT

3

1saG(edoic(mopgmtfbnp

pbsp

tiFbtTi

science has disappeared. Strategic science, however, hasinternalised the pressure for relevance while maintaining

ost-academic science Driple Helix D

a Scopus search, April 27, 2007.

ational changes and science–non-science relationships.he discussion is summarised in Table 3.

.1. Finalisation science

The concept of ‘finalisation science’ (Bohme et al.,983, 1973) describes and explains the dynamics ofcience and its societal function. To some extent, itlso contains a prescriptive message. In the 1970s, theerman research group known as the ‘Starnbergers’

Rip, 1989), developed a research programme on sci-nce dynamics consisting of case studies of scientificisciplines. The programme has resulted in a numberf journal articles, part of which have been publishedn German. Most accessible is an edited volume withontributions of the main proponents of the programmeBohme et al., 1983). Based on the case studies, theirain claim is that all disciplines follow a general devel-

pment in which an explorative phase, a paradigmatichase, and a post-paradigmatic phase can be distin-uished. In the context of this paper, the last phase isost important. In this phase, ‘finalisation’ may occur:

heoretical development that is determined by externalactors. When a discipline attains theoretical maturity, itecomes open to orientation in accordance with exter-al objectives. Its further theoretical development thenroceeds along the paths that these goals indicate.

According to the ‘finalists’, more and more disci-lines reach this phase. This implies that the relationetween science and society is changing. In this relation-hip, society is becoming an active rather than a passiveartner, and it increasingly takes a guiding role.

As Peter Weingart has indicated (Weingart, 1997),his observation is comparable to the Mode 2 thesis. Fourmportant differences need to be mentioned, however.irst, the ‘finalisation’-approach has a strong empirical
asis. Second, it clearly differentiates between scien-ific disciplines: it studies various disciplines separately.he claim that the whole science system is undergo-
ng change arises as an inductive conclusion from the

ook Ziman (2000) 97rticles Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) 175

observations of different disciplines. Third, distinct fromthe emergence of Mode 2 knowledge production, final-isation of disciplines is related primarily to internalrather than external causes. Its driving force is the the-oretical maturing development which facilitates socialorientation. In contrast, in the Mode 2 thesis, globaldevelopments such as globalisation of business and thecomplexity of policy issues figure as causal factors.Fourth, the Starnbergers are explicitly prescriptive whenthey speak of ‘normative finalisation’.6 They do notmerely report the increasing social orientation of sci-ence but also provide policy recommendations. In theirwritings, one finds a call for ‘social natural science’,science in which natural norms and social interests arecoordinated. Given the possibility of social orientation ofscientific research, they argue for setting restrictive con-ditions that the aims set by scientists must meet (Schafer,1983).

3.2. Strategic research/strategic science

The notions of strategic research and strategic scienceappear in a variety of sources. They are mainly used fordescriptive purposes, but are often translated into policygoals in a prescriptive way. The term ‘strategic research’was coined in a policy study (Irvine and Martin, 1984)and is defined as: ‘basic research carried out with theexpectation that it will produce a broad base of knowl-edge likely to form the background to the solution ofrecognised current or future practical problems’. A strik-ing feature is the emphasis on basic rather than appliedresearch. This distinguishes this diagnosis from Mode2, in which the distinction between basic and applied

the (academic) freedom to continuously move to the mostpromising line of research. Scientists do not operate in

6 This element is particularly visible in the work by Schafer (1983).

744 L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente / ResearcTa

ble

3T

heva

riou

sdi

agno

ses

pute

mph

asis

ondi

ffer

entc

hara

cter

istic

sof

scie

ntifi

ckn

owle

dge

prod

uctio

n

Lev

els

Cha

ract

eris

tics

NPK

Post

-nor

mal

scie

nce

Tri

ple

Hel

ixPo

st-a

cade

mic

scie

nce

Aca

dem

icC

apita

lism

Stra

tegi

csc

i-en

ce/r

esea

rch

Inno

vatio

nsy

stem

sFi

nalis

atio

nsc

ienc

e

Cog

nitiv

eC

hoic

eof

rese

arch

agen

da(r

esea

rch

cont

ent)

XX

XX

XX

XX

Met

hods

(tea

mw

ork,

tran

sdis

cipl

inar

ity)

XX

Epi

stem

olog

y(s

ocia

llyro

bust

know

ledg

e)X

aX

Org

anis

atio

nal

Map

ofdi

scip

lines

(tra

nsdi

scip

linar

ity)

XX

Val

ues/

labo

uret

hic

ofsc

ient

ists

(refl

exiv

ity)

XX

Nor

ms

ofqu

ality

cont

rol(

exte

nded

peer

s)X

XX

X

Ext

erna

lrel

atio

nsIn

tera

ctio

nw

ithot

her

soci

etal

‘sph

eres

’(i

ndus

try,

gove

rnm

ent)

XX

XX

XX

X

Inco

rpor

atio

nof

non-

scie

ntifi

cex

pert

ise

(par

ticip

atio

n)X

aN

PKis

uncl

ear

onth

ispo

int.

The

follo

w-u

pbo

ok‘R

e-T

hink

ing

Scie

nce’

(Now

otny

etal

.,20

01),

how

ever

,doe

scl

aim

that

anep

iste

mol

ogic

altr

ansf

orm

atio

nis

taki

ngpl

ace.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

the ‘context of application’, but they do consider the rele-vance of their work as a legitimate condition to take intoaccount. There remains a distance between the actualresearch and its eventual uptake in the form of solu-tions to societal problems or innovations that enhanceeconomic growth.

Arie Rip uses the notion of ‘Strategic Science’ todescribe an upcoming regime (Rip, 2004). This regimeis characterised by a recontextualisation of science insociety. Due to the importance of science for innova-tion and for decision-making, there is more emphasison strategic research: producing knowledge which com-bines relevance7 with scientific excellence. It replacesthe regime of ‘Science, the endless frontier’, in whichresources have been available to basic science withoutrequiring clearly articulated promises. Rip regards thespread of ‘centres for excellence and relevance’ (Rip,2004) and also the commitment of (entrepreneurial) uni-versities to both regionalism and academic excellence(Rip, 2002a) as indicators for the new regime.

3.3. Post-normal science

‘Post-normal science’ is a prescriptive approach thatis presented in a journal article (Funtowicz and Ravetz,1993), but it has led to the development of a researchcommunity working on the further development of theprogramme. The concept originates from policy-relevantscience fields and starts from an acknowledgement ofthe limitations of rational decision-making. Given thecomplexity of current issues in (environmental) policy, itargues for a reassessment of the appropriate role of scien-tific research. In environmental debates typically ‘factsare uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and deci-sions urgent’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). Accordingto the authors, ‘normal science’ in the Kuhnian sense isnot an adequate mode of knowledge production in thissituation, as it assumes that problems can be dividedinto small-scale problems that can be handled withoutquestioning the broader framework or paradigm. Thereis a need for a scientific practice which can cope withuncertainty, with value plurality and with the decision-stakes of the various stakeholders of the problem at hand.In addition it must have the capacity to support policy
makers taking their time constraints into account. Forthis purpose the term ‘post-normal science’ has beeninvented.
7 In this context, ‘relevance’ refers to application possibilities ineither (industrial) innovations or in (governmental) decision making.

Researc

speidqsnfwm2aa

isapcceitoirsitfs2ok

pcnett

3

tbuio

The book ‘Academic Capitalism’ (Slaughter andLeslie, 1997) reports the observation of increasingmarket- and market-like activities at universities ina set of empirical case studies.8 The authors aim

8 There is a large body of literature that deals with the increasinglinks with industry. However, a lot of studies in this category start from

L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente /

The most striking characteristic of post-normalcience is public participation. The solutions that pro-onents of this model offer generally boil down tongaging stakeholders in decision-making processes orn the quality assessment of scientific knowledge pro-uction. According to the post-normal science view,uality assurance of scientific input to policy processeshould be performed by an ‘extended peer commu-ity’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). To this end, severalrameworks have been developed that enable dealingith different types of uncertainty, both on the level ofodel parameters and assumptions (Van der Sluijs et al.,

005) and on the level of societal perspectives (Crayend Funtowicz, 2005) and value diversity (Kloproggend van der Sluijs, 2006).

Post-normal science shares a number of character-stics with Mode 2 knowledge production but placeslightly different accents. Common features of bothpproaches are the increased interaction across disci-linary and organisational boundaries, additional qualityriteria and a greater reflexivity. However, there is alear difference in scope. Because post-normal sci-nce is only relevant for policy-supporting research,t does not deal with the university–industry interac-ions. In post-normal science, corporations play a rolenly in as much they are a stakeholder of the pol-cy problem at hand, not because of their potentialole as a knowledge (co)producer. For the same rea-on, there is no consideration of product or processnnovations, but only for policy innovations or sys-em innovations. Because of its focus on the publicunction of research, post-normal science has strongerimilarities with the more recent book (Nowotny et al.,001) by some of the authors of NPK. It fits the idealf contextualised research, yielding ‘socially robust’nowledge.

Compared to Mode 2, post-normal science has a morerogrammatic character. It does not have a descriptiveontent in the sense that it reports the emergence of aew mode of research. Rather, in a prescriptive sense, itxpresses a need for new modes of knowledge produc-ion and aims to contribute to its fulfilment by developinghe required tools.

.4. Innovation systems

Systems thinking in innovation studies emphasiseshe importance of interactions and feedback mechanisms
etween all actors involved in innovation, includingniversity researchers, industrial product developers,ntermediary organisations and end-users. The conceptf innovation systems is primarily applied as a heuristic
h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 745

framework, in order to describe and explain the com-plexity of innovation systems. In addition, it is usedin a prescriptive sense, by arguing for a more systemicinnovation policy (Smits and Kuhlmann, 2004). In accor-dance with the variety of approaches, a diversity ofpublications is available on the topic including numerousjournal publications and (edited) books. The innova-tion systems perspective is applied on various levelsof aggregation: National Innovation Systems (Freeman,1997), Regional Innovation Systems (Cooke et al., 1997)and Technological Innovation Systems (Carlsson andStankiewicz, 1991). However, all approaches share aconsideration of the interactive nature of successful inno-vation processes (Edquist, 1997).

The innovation systems approaches share with NPKthe emphasis on the non-linearity and heterogeneity ofknowledge production. Both reject the linear model ofinnovation in which basic research is translated intoapplied research, which in turn may result in techno-logical product development (and subsequent diffusion).In Mode 2, the distinction between basic and appliedscience does not exist; in innovation systems such a dis-tinction is conceived to be ineffective. Moreover, theorganisational diversity of Mode 2 corresponds to thenetwork character of innovation systems. Collaborationsbetween universities and industry, but in particular therole of intermediary research organisations, figure inboth bodies of literature.

A distinctive feature of the systems approach ininnovation studies is that it is merely a heuristic frame-work rather than a descriptive theory. Compared tothe Mode 2 thesis, it hardly contains any descriptiveclaims. While NPK’s authors argue that contemporaryknowledge production is heterogeneous and non-linearby nature, innovation systems literature only argues itshould be heterogeneous and non-linear in order to facil-itate fruitful innovation processes.

3.5. Academic Capitalism

a firm’s perspective and mainly deal with the potential benefits andcosts for industry of collaborating with university researchers (Meeuset al., 2004; Krahmer and Schmoch, 1998; Kaufmann and Todtling,2001). In the present context, however, we are mainly interested in theconsequences of this development for scientific knowledge production.

Researc
both to describe and to explain this phenomenon.With ‘academic capitalism’ they refer to two types ofactivities. First they point to the increasing (market-like)competition for external funding: grants and contracts,endowment funds, university–industry partnerships,institutional investment in spin-off companies, or studenttuition and fees. Second they discern increasing market-activities: for-profit activity, patenting or subsequentroyalty and licensing agreements, spin-off companies,and university–industry partnerships having a profitcomponent.

The authors explain this development by two factors.First increasing globalisation enhances the pressure onindustry to innovate and causes corporations to turn touniversities for assistance. In the same time, the flowof public moneys to universities is receding. Togetherthese factors make universities more willing to engagein ‘capitalist’ activities. Notably, both identified causesare external, in the sense that they originate outside thescience system.

Slaughter and Leslie complement their empiricalobservations with a warning for the risks of the devel-opments they describe. In all four countries (US, UK,Australia, Canada) they have studied, governments pro-moted academic capitalism as a means of stimulatingeconomic growth. Except for Canada, they all suc-ceeded in developing promoting policies. However,there is no clear indication for the success of market-activities, as only some universities in the UnitedStates manage to make money. Opposite of the poten-tial benefits the authors identify substantial risks forresearchers, universities and their managers. Market(-like) activities can lead to ‘business failure’, to productresponsibility, failure to meet societal expectations(with regard to economic growth and employment)and neglect of students. For this reason, Slaughter andLeslie recommend governments to create incentivesfor universities to spend their money in the desiredways in order to avoid a decline in academic educa-tion.

‘Academic Capitalism’ partly confirms the claimof rising importance of Mode 2 knowledge produc-tion. The market(-like) activities described include (atleast to some extent) the attributes ‘context of appli-cation’, ‘organisational diversity’ and ‘novel modesof quality control’. The authors do not pay particu-lar attention to transdisciplinarity. A curious empiricalresult is the observation that researchers are ambiva-
lent with regard to ‘altruism’. They hope that theirresearch will benefit humankind, but this does not seemto be their first priority (p. 222). From their inter-views Slaughter and Leslie have got the impression
h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

of researchers being pushed in the direction of aca-demic capitalism, but they do everything they cannotto become Mode 2 researchers. They do not show theintention of leaving university as they prefer to keep theadvantages of being ‘state-supported entrepreneurs’ (p.206).

3.6. Post-academic science

In Ziman’s notion of post-academic science, heincorporates elements from several other diagnoses:Mode 2, Academic Capitalism and post-normal sci-ence. The notion is introduced in a single-authorvolume (Ziman, 2000), which elaborates on ideas pub-lished in his equally successful earlier book (Ziman,1994). Ziman intends to describe and explain a setof developments in scientific knowledge production.To summarise, post-academic science refers to a ‘rad-ical, irreversible, worldwide transformation in theway science is organised, managed and performed’(p. 67). Post-academic science (or ‘post-industrialscience’, as Ziman calls it as well) can be char-acterised by the following five (strongly connected)elements.

First, science has become a collective activity:researchers share instruments and co-write articles.Moreover, both the practical and fundamental problemsthat scientists are concerned with are transdisciplinaryin nature, calling for collective effort. Second, the expo-nential growth of scientific activities has reached afinancial ceiling. The resources available for researchseem not to increase much more, creating a needfor accountability and efficiency. Thirdly, but stronglyrelated, there is a greater stress on the utility of knowl-edge being produced. The success of applying scientificknowledge into products or practical solutions in somefields has made industry, government and the pub-lic impatient with its diffusion rate in general. Thereis an increased pressure on scientists to deliver moreobvious ‘value for money’. Next, the emergence ofscience and technology policy has strengthened thecompetition for resources. In the resulting situation,competition for real money becomes more importantthan competition for scientific credibility. Researchgroups can be conceived as small business enterprises,their staff as ‘technical consultants’. Finally, sciencehas become ‘industrialised’: the links between academiaand industry become closer and funding increasingly
comes from contract research. This development con-travenes the Mertonian norms of academic science.Due to the industrial orientation a new set of normscan be discerned, which Ziman labels as ‘PLACE’:

Researc

‘E

ZadeIaonaaatca

trotsmeMeWibsnbWtbaao(

lcd

purpTp


Proprietary, Local, Authoritarian, Commisioned, andxpert’.9

Although his approach is primarily descriptive,iman is not neutral towards the development of post-cademic science. In a recent paper (Ziman, 2003) heraws attention to the ‘non-instrumental roles of sci-nce’, which are threatened in the post-academic era.f science is valued primarily as a mode of wealth cre-tion, certain functions of knowledge production areverlooked. These include the creation of critical sce-arios and world pictures, the stimulation of rationalttitudes, and the production of enlightened practitionersnd independent experts. Ziman is convinced that post-cademic science is here to stay; we cannot go back tohe old academic model. However, he argues for a fulleronsideration of the non-instrumental roles in the debatebout the future of science.

The concept of post-academic science is quite similaro that of Mode 2 knowledge production. There are noeal contradictions between the content of both notions,nly some difference in emphasis. Indeed, Ziman referso Mode 2 in a way that suggests he conceives it as aynonym of ‘post-academic science’ or at least for theanifestation of that which he calls ‘post-industrial sci-

nce’ (p. 80). The most important difference betweenode 2 knowledge production and post-academic sci-

nce is probably the scope of the two central notions.hereas Mode 2 refers to a particular way of conduct-

ng and organising research that constitutes a limitedut increasing part of the science system, post-academiccience is a name for the whole science system in itsew state. This difference results in a different relationetween the traditional and the new mode of research.hile NPK explicitly states that Mode 2 emerges ‘next

o’ Mode 1 research and suggests a future in whichoth develop in co-evolution, Ziman speaks of post-cademic science as a practice that replaces traditionalcademic research. ‘Our exemplar is changing beforeur eyes into a new form—post-academic science (. . .)’p. 60).

A similarity between Ziman and Gibbons et al. is the
oose empirical foundation of their observations. In bothases, the authors themselves have not gathered any newata. In the same way as in NPK, Ziman only loosely
9 ‘It produces proprietary knowledge that is not necessarily madeublic. It is focused on local technical problems rather than on generalnderstanding. Industrial researchers act under managerial authorityather than as individual. Their research is commissioned to achieveractical goals, rather than undertaken in the pursuit of knowledge.hey are employed as expert problem solvers, rather than for theirersonal creativity.’ (Ziman, 2000, pp. 78–79).

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 747

refers to secondary data, although he does it a little morefrequently.

3.7. Triple Helix

The Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff,1998, 2000; Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2006) is based onthe assumption that industry, university and governmentare increasingly interdependent. This implies that thesedifferent institutional spheres have to be studied in co-evolution. The model can be seen as a heuristic forcingresearchers to systematically take into account all threespheres when studying dynamics of knowledge produc-tion and innovation. Triple Helix does not have a uniformdescriptive message like NPK, but it rather constitutes aresearch program that has yielded a variety of descriptiveclaims. Its body of literature consists mainly of specialissues of scientific journals dedicated to the Triple Helixconference series.

The central insight that this approach has yielded isthe observation of ‘an overlay of reflexive communica-tions’ between universities, industries, and governmentalagencies. According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff(2000), in most countries there is a tendency towardsa knowledge infrastructure in which these three insti-tutional spheres (academia, state and industry) overlap.In this configuration the spheres can take each other’sforms and hybrid organisations emerge at the interfaces.The linear model of utilisation of scientific knowledgeis replaced by new organisational mechanisms that inte-grate market pull and technology push. Basic researchis linked to utilisation through series of intermediateprocesses such as government initiated programs thatfacilitate university–industry interaction. The rise ofthis configuration is mainly due to the enhanced roleof knowledge in our economy and society, and to thedecreasing role of the military.

The role of universities in this configuration is oftenreferred to as its ‘third mission’.10 Making a con-tribution to economic growth is becoming a central

11
task next to teaching and research. Within the TripleHelix literature, research with this mission is referredto as ‘entrepreneurial science’ (Etzkowitz et al., 2000b;Etzkowitz, 1998; Kleinman and Vallas, 2001).
10 This point is elaborated in literature on the ‘entrepreneurial univer-sity’ (Etzkowitz, 2003; Etzkowitz et al., 2000a). Although written byone of its main founders, it is not necessarily part of the Triple Helixcorpus.11 One can argue about the adequacy of the term ‘third’ mission as

the authors do not seem to refer to a completely new task but to areformulation of the second mission.

Research Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

Fig. 1. Number of citations of NPK found in Scopus.

Fig. 2. Number of citations of NPK found in Scopus, as a fraction ofall articles containing the letter ‘A’, in order to correct for the growthof the number of journals that are included in the Scopus database.

Table 4Scientific journals in which NPK was cited at least 10 times

Journal name Number ofreferences

Science and Public Policy 51Research Policy 40Scientometrics 38Higher Education 36Minerva 21Research Evaluation 20International Journal of Technology Management 19British Journal of Management 18Studies in Higher Education 15Social Science Information 15


This new role of universities and its new relationswith government and industry are roughly in agree-ment with the idea of Mode 2 science. Especially thecontext of application and organisational diversity areapparent. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff also confirm trans-disciplinarity with their observation that new disciplines(such as computer science or nanotechnology) arise‘through synthesis of practical and theoretical interests’(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 117). As will beindicated in the next section, however, they disagree withthe view of Mode 1 as the original format of knowledgeproduction. Moreover, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff preferto speak of Mode 2 as an ‘emerging’ system emphasisinghistorical dynamics. In their eyes the current knowledgeinfrastructure is characterised by mixes of Mode 1 andMode 2 (p. 119).

3.8. Concluding remarks

Table 3 summarises the main findings of this section.The comparison shows that the individual elements ofthe Mode 2 diagnosis are not unique. All characteris-tics that it addresses return in one or more of the otherapproaches. Nearly all approaches pay attention to thechanging research agenda and the increasing interactionbetween science and other societal actors. This suggeststhat these observations are correct, especially since theyare supported by empirical evidence in for instance the‘Academic Capitalism’ volume and the ‘Triple Helix’corpus. Other claims are more distinctive, especiallythe ones dealing with methods, epistemology and val-ues. The most striking result of the mutual comparison,however, is that it shows the exceptionally wide scopeof the Mode 2 diagnosis. None of the alternatives dealwith as many characteristics of science as NPK does.It is unclear, however, whether this is a strength or aweakness.12

4. The reception of Mode 2

After the comparison with alternative approaches, wewill now focus directly on the strength of the Mode2 diagnosis and study its reception in scientific litera-ture. ‘The New Production of Knowledge’ (Gibbons et
al., 1994) has received over 1000 citations in scientificjournals13 and Figs. 1 and 2 indicate that the number ofreferences per year is still increasing. Table 4 presents alist of all journals in which 10 or more references were
12 We answer this question in the concluding section.13 Scopus search on January 18, 2007.

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15Science Technology and Human Values 15Futures 13Social Studies of Science 12Organisation 12Prometheus 12R and D Management 12Higher Education Policy 10

L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente / Research Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 749

Table 5Important reactions to NPK

Authors (year) Title Number of citationsa

Godin (1998) Writing performative history: The new new Atlantis? 21Weingart (1997) From “Finalisation” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? 41Hicks and Katz (1996) Where is science going? 35Godin and Gingras (2000) The place of universities in the system of knowledge production 23Hemlin and Rasmussen (2006) The shift in academic quality control 0Rip (2002b) Science for the 21st century 3Albert (2003) Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge

production in sociology and economics11

Shinn (2002) The Triple Helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking onscience and technology

19

Rip (2000) Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowledge production 5Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix

of university–industry–government relations175

Jansen (2002) Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a SouthAfrican University

4

Jacob (2000) ‘Mode 2’ in context: the contract researcher, the university and the knowledge society 10P n in so

fewSms(

FdmctMtflend(set

o‘fdN

This subset constituted the starting point of the literaturestudy. Other papers and book chapters taken into accountwere all found by tracing references of this subset. In thisway, the most important16 contributions to the Mode 2debate should be included (see Table 5).

estre (2003) Regimes of knowledge productioreading

a Scopus search, April 27, 2007.

ound. As one can expect, journals in the area of sci-nce, technology and innovation studies are dominant,ith a light emphasis on journals that are policy-oriented.ome exceptions in the higher rank deal with manage-ent (‘British Journal of Management’), organisation

tudies (‘Organisation’), and with policy and planning‘Futures’).

A closer look at the corpus that is represented inigs. 1 and 2 reveals that NPK’s citations can be roughlyivided into two sets. The first set of papers (we esti-ate about 80%) refers to NPK in the introduction or

onclusion section, treating it as an accepted account ofhe current transformations. In these cases, the notion of

ode 2 serves to sketch the background for the researchhat is reported. It helps either to design a theoreticalramework from which research questions are formu-ated or to discuss the implications of the findings. Forxample, Starkey and Madan (2001) use the Mode 2otion as a theoretical framework to discuss currentevelopments in management studies. Lee and Bozeman2005) refer to the rise of Mode 2 in order to empha-
ize the importance of research collaborations. Lenhardt al. (2006) cite NPK to sketch the background ofheir discussion about the future of transdisciplinarity.14
14 Although the authors do no criticize Gibbons et al., their discussionf transdisciplinarity in fact contradicts NPK’s message. Their plea forlate integration’ rather than ‘early integration’ amounts to a preferenceor Mode 1 above Mode 2 knowledge production. The integration ofisciplines early in the research project is the central characteristic ofPK’s concept of transdisciplinarity.

ciety: Towards a more political and social 7

The content of these articles varies widely, but theyhave in common that they refer to NPK in an approv-ing manner, without questioning the validity of itsclaims.

The second set (roughly 20%), however, does not takethe legitimacy of the Mode 2 concept for granted, but putsits claims to the test. Papers belonging to this categorygenerally dedicate more text to the issue of Mode 2.They do not cite NPK ‘by accident’, but use it as anessential theoretical starting point. The following sectionaddresses a number of papers that belong to this secondset.

A Scopus citation search15 yielded a list of all scien-tific articles with a reference to NPK. Based on sourcetitle and article title, a subset of all papers that have beencited 20 times or more was selected for detailed study.

15 Search entry: REF(gibbons AND “new production of knowledge”).16 In this context, two conditions for ‘importance’ can be distin-

guished: articles that give extensive reactions to NPK and that haveinfluenced other scholars (to be measured by the number of citations).Note that our focus is on the debate directly linked to the Mode 2 con-cept. Literature about the changes addressed in NPK in fact is muchbroader, as not all research dealing with these developments neces-sarily cites NPK. We do not aim to cover all literature dealing withchanges in contemporary science systems, but only papers explicitlyreacting to the Mode 2 concept.

750 L.K. Hessels, H. van Lente / Research Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

Table 6Reactions to the individual attributes of Mode 2

Mode 2 attributes Godin Weingart Hicks and Katz Godin and Gingras Hemlin and Rasmussen

Context of application − − +/−Transdisciplinary − − +Heterogeneity − +/− +/−Reflexivity/social accountability −

work, ‘considerations of use’ corresponds to ‘context ofapplication’ and still leaves room for different degrees ofbeing inspired by the quest for fundamental understand-ing.

Novel quality control − −

5. The main objections to the Mode 2 notion

The criticism of the claims of NPK found in scientificliterature is very diverse. We have identified 7 recur-ring objections, which will be subsequently presented.In our evaluative discussion (Sections 5.8 and 6), weclustered them into three categories: NPK’s descriptiveor empirical validity (Sections 5.1–5.3), its theoreticaland conceptual strength (Sections 5.4 and 5.5), and itspolitical value (Sections 5.6 and 5.7). The first type ofobjection is the most common, but the other two appearregularly as well.

In the following, we will discuss the main criticisms toNPK. In some cases we regard it appropriate to commenton the validity of the objections posed. Is the objectionindeed a serious problem to NPK? To our mind, thisdepends on correct citation of NPK, available empiricalevidence and convincing arguments.

5.1. The descriptive validity of the variousattributes of Mode 2

Table 6 lists the authors that comment on the fiveMode 2 attributes, indicating the nature of their com-ments (positive or negative).

5.1.1. Context of applicationThe assertion that research is increasingly conducted

in the context of application receives relatively littleprotest. Weingart (1997) argues that the ‘context ofapplication’ would lack stability, which means that itwill always remain dependent on disciplinary practices.However, this does not contradict the Mode 2 theory asGibbons and his co-authors also expect Mode 1 scienceto remain present.

According to Gibbons et al. Mode 2 knowledgeis produced in contexts of application, going beyond
the distinction between basic and applied research.Godin (1998) argues, however, that this distinction(which would disappear in Mode 2) in fact has neverexisted. Fundamental research has always been inspired
+

by more applied knowledge and applied research hasalways shown interest in fundamental understandingof the relevant phenomena. This observation, how-ever, does not imply that basic and applied researchhave never been separate domains. Godin’s argumentdoes not affect NPK’s claim that the interactionsbetween basic and applied research are intensify-ing.

Hicks and Katz (1996) test the claim that the locus ofknowledge production shifts to the context of applicationTheir bibliometric analysis, however, does not succeedto either confirm or reject this claim.

In conclusion, the ‘context of application’ remains acomplicated concept and there is a lack of clarity withregard to the difference with ‘applied’ science. A possi-ble solution for this problem can be found in typologyof research modes of Stokes (1997). He breaks openthe classic dichotomy of basic and applied researchresulting in a quadrant-model, which treats the questfor fundamental understanding and the considerationsof use as distinct variables (see Fig. 3). In this frame-

Fig. 3. Stokes’ model of scientific research (Stokes, 1997).

Researc

5

cto

dAssimssaHefcdart

rAtf5tifpik

caeatiasNKwdpins

production. In these disciplines he agrees that an institu-tionalisation of reflexive mechanisms is discernable. Yet,in areas of knowledge lacking an immediate connection

17 This observation may seem to contradict the findings of Godin and


.1.2. TransdisciplinarityThe claim that science becomes increasingly transdis-

iplinary receives mixed reactions. The discussion of thisopic is complicated by the lack of universal definitionsf inter- and transdisciplinary research.

Godin (1998) criticises the dichotomy betweenisciplinary research and interdisciplinary research.ccording to him, the development of disciplines with

pecialisations and hybrid formations is typical of anycientific practice. Knowledge production never occursn isolation; it always involves the employment of ele-

ents from other disciplines. Disciplines might acquireome degree of autonomy, but Godin assumes theame could happen to ‘transdisciplinary’ research. Thisrgument would hold for interdisciplinary research.owever, transdisciplinarity as proposed by Gibbons

t al. implies more than only the cooperation of dif-erent disciplines. Additional conditions include theo-evolution of a common guiding framework and theiffusion of results during the research process. Thessertion that this type of knowledge production is cur-ently gaining importance is, in our mind, not sensitiveo the criticism just described.

Weingart (1997) shares Godin’s concern that theecombination of disciplines is not a new phenomenon.s defined in NPK, transdisciplinarity involves more

han that, but according to Weingart, what the dif-erences are ‘remains vague and ambiguous’ (p.96). A more serious problem raised by Weingart ishe difference between the level of program fund-ng and the actual research. Research programs mayormulate interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinaryroblems, but the research carried out under their head-ngs is often of a disciplinary or multi-disciplinaryind.

Hicks and Katz (1996) observe a growth in ‘transdis-iplinary’ journals (although disciplinary research stillccounts for the bulk of scientific output). However, theymploy this term in a different sense than Gibbons etl. According to Hicks and Katz, a journal counts asransdisciplinary when it cannot be classified as belong-ng to a single field or discipline. They do not take intoccount the epistemological and methodological dimen-ions of the definition of transdisciplinarity as used inPK. As a result, the selection made by Hicks andatz includes journals which Gibbons and his co-authorsould call ‘multi-disciplinary’ journals. Their outcomes
o prove that interactions between the various disci-lines are increasing, but they cannot provide insightnto the qualitative nature of these interactions and doot imply that they are ‘transdisciplinary’ in NPK’sense.
h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 751

5.1.3. HeterogeneityMost scholars seem to agree that the heterogeneity of

knowledge production is increasing, but they disagreeabout the extent.

In a bibiliometrical study, Godin and Gingras (2000)show that the share of academic publications that includenon-university contributions is increasing, in accordancewith the Mode 2 claim of ‘organisational diversity’. Inspite of this diversification, however, the presence of uni-versities in scientific papers is not diminishing at all. InCanada the share of papers including a university addresshas increased from 75% to 82% in the period 1980–1995.From this study it can be concluded that intersectoralcollaboration is growing, but universities remain at thecentre of knowledge production.

Weingart (1997), on the contrary, argues that therole of think-tanks and consulting firms is negligiblein terms of manpower and budgets. This will probablyvary for different disciplines; in management research,for instance, they are prominent (Huff, 2000). Weingart’sremark that they remain dependent on academic researchdoes not contradict the NPK claims.

In their bibliometric analysis, Hicks and Katz (1996)show that an increasing number of organisations houseauthors of journal articles. Between 1983 and 1991, thenumber of organisations in the UK participating in scien-tific publishing has increased in all sectors they studied(hospitals, industry, non-profit, universities, governmentand polytechnics), except for research councils.17 How-ever, within the various sectors, Hicks and Katz do notdiscern a uniform trend toward dispersion of the publica-tion activity. Several sectors (e.g. industry, and hospital)even have become more concentrated. For this reason,their observation cannot be seen as an indicator for theincreasing heterogeneity of scientific knowledge produc-tion.

5.1.4. Reflexivity/social accountabilityReflexivity and social accountability receives less

attention in the criticisms of the Mode 2 concept.Weingart, for instance, regards social accountabilityto be mainly applicable to policy-relevant knowledge

Gingras but does not necessarily imply a difference between Canadaand the United Kingdom. The co-existence of the findings of the twostudies can be explained by assuming that the share of papers withauthors from several sectors has increased, or even more general, thatthe average number of authors on each paper has increased.

Researc
to social values and subjective risk perception (‘high-energy physics, astronomy, and paleontology’, p. 603),he denies that there is either a need for or a perceiv-able rise of reflexivity. This assertion is not supportedby empirical evidence, however. The issue of reflexivityseems to deserve further investigation.

5.1.5. Quality controlThe novel types of quality control probably constitute

the most controversial attribute of Mode 2 knowledgeproduction.

In agreement with NPK, for instance, Hemlin andRasmussen (2006) argue that a shift is taking placefrom ‘quality control’ to ‘quality monitoring’. Similarto Mode 1, however, the former remains important. Thenotion of quality monitoring shares some characteris-tics with Mode 2. It is subject to influences of industryand policy, it includes new ‘peers’ (users, consultants,lay persons) and a greater consideration of ethical andpolitical issues. However, Hemlin and Rasmussen alsoadd some elements that are not apparent in NPK: a shiftfrom the assessment of individuals to organisations anda shift in time perspective from a retrospective judgmentof research activities to an ongoing evaluation processduring the research progression. The authors also relatethe putative shift to organisational theory and argue fora further study on organisational learning in scientificinstitutes. However, they do not provide much empir-ical evidence for their claims, apart from a couple ofillustrative examples.

Weingart and Godin are sceptical, however. Godin(1998) argues that the scientific criteria are still the mostimportant. Referring to the personal experience of hisreaders, he states that the success of attracting researchfunds being dependent on extra-scientific criteria relat-ing to social priorities, relevance and accountability ‘isstill a rhetoric rather than a fact’ (p. 478). In our opin-ion this assertion does not do justice to the diversity ofcontemporary funding systems. Probably still a lot offunding allocation is still ruled by scientific considera-tions. Nevertheless, today a significant share of fundingin many western countries18 depends on societal priori-
ties.
Similar to Godin, Weingart (1997) claims that inindustrial research marketability and cost effectivenesshave always been present, while in academic quality

18 For instance the European Framework Programmes and nationalinnovation policy instruments. Examples in the Netherlands are‘Technologiestichting STW’, ‘Technologische Topinstituten’ and‘Innovatiegerichte Onderzoeksprogramma’s’.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

assessment they are still of minor importance. Even inpolicy-relevant science that is carried out in the contextof application, the scientific standards assessed by ‘peerreview’ remain the most significant measure of qual-ity. However, in contrary to Weingart’s suggestion on‘ample freedom for (. . .) researchers and long-term per-spectives’ (p. 603) at corporations such as IBM, multina-tionals today seem to be increasingly reluctant to engagein fundamental research programs. Due to globalisedcompetition, industrial corporations have been forced tocut their budgets and have chosen to cut the costs oflong-term research activities (De Wit et al., 2007).

In conclusion, the importance of additional qualitycriteria at universities is contested and remains a questionopen for empirical investigation.

5.2. Generality of Mode 2 notion

In addition to the detailed comments on the individ-ual Mode 2 attributes, scholars point to limitations in theempirical validity of NPK’s claims on a more genericlevel. In this respect, two major problems can be dis-cerned: the generality of the argument per se and itshistorical perspective.

Gibbons et al. argue that the rise of Mode 2 affectsthe whole science system: ‘Mode 2 is spreading acrossthe entire landscape of science and technology’ (NPK,p. 22). ‘These changes appear in the natural and socialsciences but also in the humanities’ (NPK, p. 3).

Weingart (1997) contests these claims. He argues‘that the features of “Mode 2” (. . .) are limited to afairly small sector of the entire science system’ (p.608). He claims that some Mode 2 attributes (contextof application, transdisciplinarity) make sense only forscience which is close to policy-making such as envi-ronmental research. The subset of academic researchfrom which he believes Gibbons et al. draw their evi-dence, represents only a fraction of the entire science andtechnology system. Features like ‘uncertainty of knowl-edge, complexity of subject matter, policy orientationand value-ladenness’ (p. 600), which characterise thesector of technology assessment, risk research, and envi-ronmental and climate research, cannot be generalised.Therefore, Weingart sees no reason to believe Mode 2will extend to all other areas of science.

Godin (1998) rejects the generality of NPK’sapproach, too. In particular, he argues that ‘the socialsciences, as well as the humanities, have always been
of Mode 2, much more than has been the case for thenatural and physical sciences’ (p. 472).
Albert (2003), however, has shown that there is noobservable trend towards Mode 2 in the sociology and

Researc

eBppohnsd

Suncntonii

tscn

5

ah2ape

tltFc‘o

nrnoposf


conomics departments of two Canadian universities.ased on interviews with scientists and a study of theirublications, he states that there is no tendency towardsroblem-oriented research, but rather a predominancef Mode 1 knowledge production. Albert concludes thatis findings demonstrate that academic research can-ot be seen as a homologous unit. He argues that onehould take into account the heterogeneity of scientificisciplines and of the various research ‘regimes’.

Critics also mention the neglect of national contexts.hinn (2002) claims NPK fails to ‘recognise that theniversity, business and government all function in aational setting’ (p. 610). He argues that scientific dis-iplines and specialties operate differently in differentational institutions. In spite of current globalisation,he national component of the organisation and workf science is still apparent. Referring to the literature onational systems of innovation, Shinn states that, evenn Europe, national science policies are still of greatmportance.

The claim of NPK of a general move to Mode 2,herefore, is denied by several authors on different andometimes contradicting grounds. This implies in anyase that the specificity of disciplinary developmentseeds be taken into account much stronger.

.3. The long-term historical perspective

NPK’s second generic limitation indicated in liter-ture concerns its historical perspective. Referring toistorical studies of sciences, several scholars (Rip,000; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) claim thatt least some of the attributes of Mode 2 knowledgeroduction have always been present in modern sci-nce.

Rip (2002b) rejects the view of Mode 1 as the originalype of research. We should rather see it as historicallyocated: it emerged during the course of the19th Cen-ury and became locked in during the 1950s and 1960s.eatures of Mode 2 such as heterogeneity and transdis-iplinarity are not new; they were already present in theRenaissance melting pot’ (Rip, 2000) before the birthf modern science.

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) also contest theewness of Mode 2 and use similar arguments. Refer-ing to historical studies of science they claim that it isot Mode 1 but Mode 2 which is the original formatf science, as, in the 17th Century, research focused on
ractical problems. ‘Mode 2 represents the material basef science, how it actually operates. Mode 1 is a con-truct, built upon that base in order to justify autonomyor science, especially in an earlier era when it was still
h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 753

a fragile institution and needed all the help it could get’(p. 116).

Similarly, Pestre (2003) argues that elements of Mode2 have always existed in modern science. Knowledgeproducers have never isolated themselves in an ivorytower, but have always paid attention to the interests ofstates and economic elites relating to science. Moreover,‘science has always directly contributed to, and has beena major resource for, changes in social ideologies’ (p.250).

5.4. The coherence of the concept

The Mode 2-authors describes Mode 2 as a stableentity, with a specified set of characteristics. This impliesthat the notion of Mode 2 is coherent in the sense that thevarious attributes mutually correlate. ‘These attributes,while not present in every instance of Mode 2, do whenthey appear together have a coherence which gives recog-nisable cognitive and organisational stability to the modeof knowledge production’, Gibbons et al. declare (NPK,p. 8). Critics seriously question this assumption, andthe criticisms discussed above illustrate this. If the evi-dence for the diverse attributes of Mode 2 varies, andsome receive more assent than others, one can wonderabout their mutual relations. Possibly the claim of theNPK authors about the rise of Mode 2 should be dividedinto five different claims about five distinct trends incontemporary science.

According to Rip (2002b), the separate features thatGibbons et al. describe ‘are clearly visible, but onemight question their overall thesis that these add up to anew mode of knowledge production’ (pp. 104–105). Hedoubts whether the features together have enough sta-bility to make it appropriate to speak of a new researchmode.

Godin (1998) confirms two of those claims, but herejects the other three. He agrees that the heterogeneity ofthe science system has increased and that researchers aremore socially accountable. But in his view both the ‘con-text of application’ and ‘transdisciplinarity’ has alwaysexisted, while novel criteria of quality control are notyet apparent. Similarly, Weingart (1997) considers allattributes to be present in policy-relevant science, exceptfor novel quality criteria.

5.5. Theoretical underpinning

Shinn (2002) discusses a second conceptual problem.He is concerned about the lack of theoretical under-pinning of NPK’s sociological framework. In Shinn’sreading, ‘anti-differentiationism’ is the central feature

Researc
of NPK’s approach, as it blurs the boundaries betweenacademic, technical, industrial, political and sociolog-ical institutions. However, this central idea ‘is neverbuttressed with sociological theory, concepts or models’but it ‘stands as a free-floating, unintegrated component’(p. 604). NPK does not account for ‘how differentia-tions have operated in the past, how and why they wouldhave eroded, and what their putative demise implies forsociological theory’ (p. 611).

This criticism is not completely fair. The fact thatNPK does not talk about the past indeed is a severe lim-itation that calls for further study. However, although itstreatment of the mechanisms may not be sociologicallysound, it does provide an account of the why and how ofthe erosion of differentiations. It refers to causal forcesin the supply and in the need of knowledge and it offersan explanation of the putatively increasing interactionsacross disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Explicitrelations with sociological theory are indeed absent inNPK, but these receive some attention in the follow-upbook Re-thinking Science.

5.6. Mode 2: wishful thinking?

Several authors complain about the uncritical blendof descriptive and normative content in NPK. Accordingto Godin (1998), the talk of Mode 2 is more a politi-cal ideology than a descriptive theory. He associates themessage with a ‘polarized rhetoric’, which ‘denouncesmany of the characteristics of contemporary research andtraining in the name of social and political desideratawhich are themselves in exact opposition to characteris-tics of traditional academic research’ (p. 479). The lackof empirical foundations makes this a dangerous situa-tion from a policy standpoint as it can easily raise theimpression that the current research system needs to bereplaced. Godin warns that some readers of NPK mayconclude that the old system and the old academics arewrong and that a new type of research would be betterthan traditional academic research.

The comments made by Shinn (2002) are similar:‘Instead of theory or data, the New Production of Knowl-edge – both book and concept – seems tinged withpolitical commitment’ (p. 604). Shinn perceives theauthors as being in favour of a new cognitive and socialorder. In his reading, they aim to support Mode 2 bypersuading others to believe in its importance and desir-ability.

This relates to what Weingart (1997) calls ‘perfor-mative discourse’. He also has the impression that theidea of Mode 2 is part of a normative program ratherthan an empirical analysis (p. 608), but in this remark

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

he mistakenly fails to distinguish between Mode 2 andpost-normal science. In fact, the latter indeed containsstrong normative elements, but – as we have argued inSection 4 – this is exactly the main difference from theformer.

Some commentators have indeed treated NPK as aprescriptive rather than a descriptive theory. For instance,the criticism uttered by Jansen (2002) and Jacob (2000)is more concerned with the problems of bringing Mode 2into practice than with the question whether the change isactually taking place. In contrast to the previous critics,however, these do not contest the fact that NPK may beara normative dimension, but question the validity of thenormative content itself.

5.7. Lack of future outlook

A minor comment to be mentioned here is expressedby Weingart (1997), who accuses Gibbons et al. of notbeing clear with regard to the persistence of Mode 1knowledge production (p. 593). NPK indeed is some-what ambivalent in its future outlook. On the one hand,the authors acknowledge that the disciplinary forms ofcognitive and social organisation continue to be prerequi-site of identity, as happens during education and training.On the other hand, they expect that eventually ‘Mode 1will become incorporated within the larger system whichwe have called Mode 2’ (p. 154), but this statement doesnot receive any explication. What Gibbons et al. exactlyexpect to remain of Mode 1 research, therefore, remainsvague.

5.8. Concluding remarks

Clearly, the empirical validity of the Mode 2 claims islimited. On a generic level, critics convincingly indicatetwo major problems. First, the NPK authors disregardthe diversity of science and second, their historical viewis mistaken. Moreover, some of the Mode 2 attributesare heavily disputed. In particular empirical evidence toshow the rise of reflexivity, transdisciplinarity, and newmodes of quality control is lacking.

Concerning NPK’s conceptual strength, one canargue that more links to sociological theory are required.We consider the problem of a lack of coherence moreserious. Given the fact that the different attributes ofMode 2 receive assent to varying degrees, there seems nocompelling reason to tie them together under a common
heading. Whether Mode 2 has ‘recognisable cognitiveand organisational stability’ is highly questionable.
In our opinion, the comments regarding the norma-tive message of NPK do some injustice the content of

Researc

tdpamaTsodasba(pbna1

6

dpk(oWtir

bib‘trhH(

v

c

mao


he book.19 A careful reading reveals that the authorso not have explicit normative intentions. On the firstage, Gibbons et al. already mention that their intentionsre descriptive rather than normative: ‘No judgement isade as to the value of these trends – that is, whether they

re good and to be encouraged, or bad and resisted . . .’.he remainder of this sentence, however, can explainome of the confusion: ‘. . . – but it does appear that theyccur most frequently in those areas which currentlyefine the frontier and among those who are regardeds leaders in their various fields.’ Strictly speaking, thisentence does not qualify Mode 2 as better than Mode 1,ut it does hint in this direction. So there is some rhetoric,nd as rhetorics about science can lead to social realityVan Lente and Rip, 1998), the critics have right to com-lain. This means, thus, that the NPK authors could haveeen a bit more careful in distancing themselves fromormative claims, that is, if that was their intention.20 Inddition, more clarity with regard to the future of Modeknowledge production is desirable.

. Towards a research agenda

Our comparison with alternative diagnoses of theynamics of contemporary science systems shows thearticularly wide scope of the concept of Mode 2nowledge production. The diagnosis expressed in NPKGibbons et al., 1994) includes statements about changesn the cognitive, organisational and the societal level.hatever one may think of the adequacy of its analysis,

his must be regarded as an accomplishment. Thanks tots breadth, NPK has created a forum to discuss a wideange of putative trends.

There are certainly big differences in aims and scopeetween the various diagnoses that we have addressedn Section 4. An important difference is their balanceetween descriptive and normative content. While thepost-normal’ science literature shows a clear norma-ive orientation, others primarily limit themselves toeporting observations. Another difference is betweeneterogeneous research programmes (such as Tripleelix and innovation systems) and well-defined analyses

such as NPK and Academic Capitalism).However, as displayed in Table 3, the content of the

arious accounts show strong similarities. The claim

19 Neither Godin, Shinn nor Weingart support their objections withitations from the book.20 Note, however, that even when the authors did not have any nor-ative ambitions, the notion of Mode 2 could be taken up by others asdirection to follow. Texts have a life on their own, beyond the reachf authors, and may lead to self-propelling dynamics.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 755

that the content of scientific research agenda is cur-rently changing recurs in all diagnoses: all address a turntowards more relevant research, research that (sooneror later) may lead to applications in the form of inno-vations or policy. Furthermore, all approaches point tomore interactive relationships between science, industryand government. In conclusion, at least two character-istics of knowledge production that NPK claims to beundergoing change find strong resonance in the alterna-tive diagnoses. In other words, there is some degree ofconsensus on these points.

The other characteristics that are addressed in theMode 2 diagnosis are much more contested. The con-viction that the shift towards more relevant knowledgeproduction also involves a change in the researchmethods is hardly shared by other diagnoses. Thesame holds for the claims that the disciplinary mapis undergoing profound changes and that there is arise of novel modes of quality control. To concludefrom this comparison then, that these three claims arewrong, would be too quick. It does point, however,to the need for empirical evidence for the putativechanges.

The Mode 2 claims have received mixed reactions:hundreds of papers cite NPK affirmatively and policymakers use the arguments, but there is also serious crit-icism. An analysis of the receptions of NPK in theliterature has yielded a list of seven objections, whichwe divided into three categories: the empirical validity,the conceptual strength, and the political value of NPK.

Empirical validity1. There is a lack of empirical evidence for the rising

importance of the attributes of Mode 2 (Godin, 1998;Weingart, 1997; Hicks and Katz, 1996).

2. The long-term historical perspective is incorrect: theview of Mode 1 as the original type of knowledgeproduction is contested (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff,2000; Rip, 2000; Pestre, 2003).

3. The universality of the claims is not justified:in contrast with the generality of NPK, scholarsexpect the dynamics to be different in differentnational contexts and in different scientific dis-ciplines (Tuunainen, 2005; Albert, 2003; Shinn,2002).

Conceptual strength4. The necessary coherence of the concept is ques-

tionable: there might be a lot of multi-disciplinary,application-oriented research that does not showorganisational diversity or novel types of qualitycontrol (Rip, 2002b).

Researc

argue? Numerous publications are available on the issueof transdisciplinarity (Pohl, 2005; Lenhard et al., 2006;Despres et al., 2004), but these do not demonstrate the


5. The claims lack a theoretical underpinning and ref-erences to sociological theory (Shinn, 2002).

Political value6. The authors seem to implicitly support the observed

trends (Shinn, 2002; Godin, 1998; Weingart, 1997).7. The book lacks a proper future outlook (Weingart,

1997).

These seven objections point to problems with thecontent as well as to problems with the form of NPK.The last three accusations, for instance, merely dealwith the form that NPK’s authors have chosen to presenttheir message. In fact, they indicate that NPK does notalways meet the standards that a scientific reader expects.Although many critics have treated it as a scientific the-ory, we rather suggest conceiving it as a manifesto,21 inwhich the authors are more concerned with getting themessage across than with building sociological theoriesor with carefully distinguishing their observations fromtheir opinions.

However, this observation does not necessarily affectthe validity of the descriptive and conceptual content ofNPK. Even the most carelessly written manifesto canstill point in the right direction. And, in the case of NPK,even if both complaints about its political value were cor-rect, the concept of Mode 2 can still be useful: they affectthe appreciation of NPK as a book, but not necessarilyas a descriptive project. The same holds for objection 5.Yes, the lack of theoretical underpinning definitely con-stitutes a limitation of NPK. Nevertheless, it does notautomatically have implications for the accuracy of itsdiagnosis. The fact that the Mode 2 concept was intro-duced without references to sociological theory does notimply that it cannot be related to theory. For the con-cept to be viable, however, it would be required to makethese references later to avoid it becoming a theoretical‘island’.

The first 4 objections are more severe threats, espe-cially the noted lack of coherence. Probably leastthreatening is the mistaken historical perspective, asthis weakness can be corrected. In this respect, NPKis simply wrong, as it gives a too linear account of thehistorical dynamics of scientific practice. The sugges-tion that a traditional disciplinary mode of research isgradually giving way to a more interactive mode is not
historically correct. For example, intimate interactionsbetween science, invention and entrepreneurship werealready important in the British industrial revolution
21 Note that the volume was originally written for an audience ofpolicy makers rather than scientists.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

(Freeman, 1997). Another example is the well-knownsteep increase in prestige of and available funding forbasic research in disciplines such as chemistry andphysics just after WWII provides another illustration.Inspired by the presidential advice by Bush (1945), west-ern economies devoted large amounts of money to basicresearch, as conducted in universities.22 This points to astrong increase – or even stronger: a ‘lock-in’ (Rip, 2000)– of Mode 1 at the expense of research with Mode 2 char-acteristics. We should not regard the changing modes ofresearch as a one-dimensional development. Yes, it isconceivable that currently Mode 2 knowledge produc-tion is gaining importance in comparison with Mode 1.But to view of Mode 1 as the ‘traditional’ mode, andMode 2 as the mode which introduces radically new char-acteristics to scientific practice, is incorrect. As has beensuggested by Martin (2003), it may be more appropriateto speak of ‘shifts in the balance of Mode 1 and Mode2 over time’. Research is needed, then, to specify thehistorical contingencies in the Mode 2 concept.

Problem 1 indicates a serious weakness of NPK:its lack of empirical evidence. We concluded thatsome claims are readily shared amongst alternativeapproaches. Of the five attributes of Mode 2, the ‘contextof application’ and ‘heterogeneity’ receive assent bothin the alternative diagnoses and in the direct reactions toNPK in scientific literature. For the other three (trans-disciplinarity, reflexivity, and novel modes of qualitycontrol), however, neither confirming nor falsifying evi-dence is available. Further empirical research is requiredto decide whether NPK’s claims about these points areappropriate.

The idea of transdisciplinarity is contested. In theirreactions to NPK, several authors have addressed theissue of interdisciplinarity with theoretical comments(Godin, 1998) or empirical investigation (Hicks andKatz, 1996). However, the question of NPK’s conceptof transdisciplinarity is still open, because this includesadditional features when compared to the concept ofinterdisciplinary research. Is the integration of disci-plinary research elements as dynamic as Gibbons et al.

22 Ironically, the original report did emphasize the importance ofinterconnections between basic research and other parts of innova-tion processes, too. However, the report has generally been interpretedas a propaganda document advertising the importance of funding basicresearch and viewing applied research as ‘second rate’ (Shapley andRoy, 1985).

Researc

aaoo

aSaasilqabititshti

e(WcitpCtfpeIepia

a2tntt

ap


ctual diffusion of this mode of research.23 A question toddress in an empirical study is how often the researchutcomes are indeed communicated during the processf knowledge production.

The claim of NPK that reflexivity and social account-bility tend to increase also merits more research.laughter and Leslie (1997), for instance, report that thembition to enhance human welfare does not seem to befirst priority for scientific researchers. It remains to be

een to what extent the (potential) relevance of their worknfluences the choices researchers make about prob-em choice, research design and methods. This raisesuestions about the reflexivity reported by Gibbons etl. Can one discern an increased awareness of possi-le societal effects on the actual laboratory floor or ist only visible during interactions of researchers withheir societal ‘stakeholders’? Following Weingart’s crit-cism (Weingart, 1997), one can wonder whether therend of increased reflexivity is limited to policy-relevantciences. There are many other fields that appear toave a stronger orientation towards commercial applica-ions, but it is uncertain whether this makes the scientistsnvolved more reflexive.

About the possible new modes of quality control thevidence is mixed. Some studies confirm the changeHemlin and Rasmussen, 2006) but others (Godin, 1998;

eingart, 1997) reject it. In Swedish funding agen-ies for technical research, applicability has become anmportant criterion (Benner and Sandstrom, 2000), buthe impact of this change is still uncertain.24 After a com-arison of funding practices in Sweden, the UK, Norway,anada and the USA, Benner and Sandstrom conclude

hat, although new criteria such as utility and demandsrom ‘customers’ have been added, research councilsreserve their core orientation: the collegial control andvaluation of research (Benner and Sandstrom, 2000).n the Netherlands, societal relevance is a structurallement of the evaluation procedure of research group
erformances (VSNU/NWO/KNAW, 2003). However,t is unclear how important this specific criterion isnd how it should be measured. Recently a number
23 It must be noted that various definitions of transdisciplinarity arevailable, some in disagreement with NPK (Lawrence and Despres,004). For some (Regeer and Bunders, 2003), the distinctive charac-eristic of transdisciplinary research is the inclusion of knowledge ofon-scientists. Strictly speaking, however, this feature is more relatedo what Gibbons et al. call ‘heterogeneity’ than to their concept ofransdisciplinarity.24 The new criteria employed by the funding agencies have aroused

debate including public letters signed by hundreds of universityrofessors (Benner and Sandstrom, 2000).

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 757

assessment tools have been developed and tested whichaddress criteria for societal relevance. Examples arethe ‘societal quality research profile’ (SQRP) in healthresearch (Spaapen, 1995) and the ‘research embed-ment and performance profile’ (REPP) of agriculturalsciences (Wamelink and Spaapen, 1999) and pharmaceu-tical research (Dijstelbloem et al., 2002). Novel modesof quality control also figure prominently in post-normalscience literature. In this context, scholars have devel-oped novel assessment systems which contain additionalcriteria in which non-academics have an important place(Van der Sluijs et al., 2005). It is unclear, however, onwhat scale this type of evaluations has been adopted todate. Quality control is a broad phenomenon that com-prises diverse practices. In the NPK definition, qualitycontrol is the set of procedures and criteria that con-stitute the ‘selection mechanism of problems, methods,people and results’ (p. 32). This implies that it includesthe assessment of research proposals applying for fund-ing, manuscripts for publication in scientific journals,applications for conference contributions, applicationsfor academic positions, and performances of researchgroups, programmes and projects. The question, then, isto what extent the novel criteria count in all these prac-tices. It is conceivable that relevance or applicability isof more decisive importance as a criterion for attributingfunding than it is for assessing candidates for academicpositions. To put it simply, the issue at stake is: Whatrewards do researchers receive for conducting relevantresearch?

The disregard of the diversity of scientific practiceconstitutes another weakness in the Mode 2 diagno-sis. NPK raises the impression of a dichotomy of tworesearch modes. Contemporary philosophy and sociol-ogy of science, however, emphasise the heterogeneity ofscientific practices (Stengers, 1997). Scientific researchis carried out in an endless variety of ways. Mod-ern science is a ‘patchwork of very different activities,joined together under an umbrella label, SCIENCE’(Rip, 1997). It is improbable that they can all be classi-fied as either Mode 1 or Mode 2 knowledge production.Probably it is much more valid to speak of Mode 1 andMode 2 as the extremes of a continuum than of them as
two mutually exclusive categories. In this way Mode 1and Mode 2 are ideal types, rather than really existingphenomena25 and this raises the possibility to position
25 Muller 2000 as cited in Tuunainen (2005, p. 282): NPK over-dichotomizes the evolution of science ‘presenting it as two discreteideal types that probably never exist in their pure form in the realworld’.

Researc
existing practices of knowledge production on the con-tinuum. It seems, however, that currently the knowledgeis lacking for systematically positioning the different dis-ciplines and subfields. Although several scholars argueagainst the generality of NPK, they only offer roughestimations of the differences between the disciplines.

An important lesson of our review is that in inves-tigating changes in contemporary science systems, oneshould take into account the diversity of science. Due tothe heterogeneity of scientific practice, the emergenceof new modes of knowledge production will not havethe same impact in the whole science system. Its impor-tance may vary in national contexts (Shinn, 2002) and inscientific disciplines (Albert, 2003). Disciplinary char-acteristics that influence the shifts in balance betweendifferent modes of knowledge production need not belimited to the content of their inquiries but include fea-tures of social organisation (Whitley, 1984) too. Furtherresearch must show how visible the various Mode 2attributes are in different disciplines and in differentcountries.

The problem of the lack of coherence is probably thelargest threat to the Mode 2 concept. The disagreementabout the five attributes of Mode 2 and their relativeimportance shows, in the end, that there is no compellingreason why they should operate together.26 It seemsmore appropriate to regard the individual attributes asseparate trends than as characteristics of a general devel-opment. Literature suggests that there may be a lot ofresearch with one or more of the features, but that theamount of work assembling all five is marginal. For thisreason, we propose to untie the wrapping around theMode 2 concept. The individual trends that it addressesdefinitely deserve further research, but this should beconducted separately, ignoring the common heading ofMode 2.

6.1. To conclude

NPK has been successful as a manifesto. With itsbroad scope and evocative claims it has raised con-siderable attention in the area of science policy. Itidentifies a number of trends which still deserve furtherconsideration. A review of alternative accounts and crit-icisms shows that the Mode 2 diagnosis of contemporary
dynamics of scientific practice contains some adequateclaims, and that some claims seem doubtful (the rise oftransdisciplinarity, reflexivity and novel modes of qualitycontrol). Moreover, the generality of the arguments, the
26 This problem is also mentioned by Yearley (2005, p. 108).

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

linear historical perspective and the necessary coherenceof the original Mode 2 arguments are all problematical.The next step we suggest in re-thinking new knowledgeproduction is addressing the following three empiricalquestions:

1. Do transdisciplinary research activities, with adynamic integration of theoretical and practicalcomponents from various disciplines, constitute asubstantial part of contemporary science systems?

2. Are university scientists in general increasinglyreflexive, in the sense that they are aware of thepotential societal effects of their research and takethese into account in their choice of research objects,methods and approaches?

3. Do new criteria, relating to the societal relevance ofresearch results, currently count significantly in alltypes of scientific quality control, not only in fund-ing allocation, but also in retrospective evaluations ofindividuals, projects or organisations?

To scholars addressing these three questions westrongly recommend taking into account the heterogene-ity of science, paying attention to the differences betweenscientific fields and national contexts.

The conclusion of this paper is that the viability ofan aggregate Mode 2 claim that is constituted by fiveattributes is limited. Our review shows that it is timeto disconnect the five major constitutive claims and toinvestigate them separately.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank John Grin, RuudSmits and Arend Zomer for their fruitful comments onearlier drafts of this paper. This paper was presented atthe Science Impact conference in Vienna, Austria, 10–11May 2007 and at the Science, Technology and Innova-tion Studies conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,2–3 July 2007. We thank the participants of both eventsfor their helpful questions and remarks.

References

Albert, M., 2003. Universities and the market economy: the differen-tial impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics.Higher Education 45 (2), 147–182.

Benner, M., Sandstrom, U., 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix:
research funding and norms in the academic system. ResearchPolicy 29 (2), 291–301.
Bohme, G., Van den Daele, W., Hohlfeld, R., Krohn, W., Schafer, W.,1983. Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of ScientificProgress. Riedel, Dordrecht.

Researc

B

BC

C

C

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

F

F

F

G

G

G


ohme, G., Van den Daele, W., Krohn, W., 1973. Die Finalisierungder Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 2 (2), 128–144.

ush, V., 1945. Science—The Endless Frontier.arlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R., 1991. On the nature, function and

composition of technological systems. Evolutionary Economics1, 92–118.

ooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., Etxebarria, G., 1997. Regional innova-tion systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. ResearchPolicy 26 (4/5), 475–491.

raye, M., Funtowicz, S., 2005. A reflexive approach to dealing withuncertainties in environmental health risk science and policy. Inter-national Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 5 (2/3/4),216–236.

e Wit, J., Dankbaar, B., Vissers, G., 2007. Open Innovation: the newway of knowledge transfer? Journal of Business Chemistry 4 (1),11–19.

espres, C., Brais, N., Avellan, S., 2004. Collaborative planningfor retrofitting suburbs: transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity inaction. Futures 36, 471–486.

ijstelbloem, H., Spaapen, J., Wamelink, F., 2002. Knocking at thegatekeepers door: the distribution of accountability in pharma-ceutical research. In: Society for Social Studies of Science (4S)Conference, 26th annual meeting Milwaukee, USA.

dquist, C., 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies. Institutionsand Organisations, Pinter publishers, New York/London.

tzkowitz, H., 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitiveeffects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy27, 823–833.

tzkowitz, H., 2003. Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the inven-tion of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32,109–121.

tzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 1998. The endless transition: A “triplehelix” of university–industry–government relations. Minerva 36,203–208.

tzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation:from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix ofuniversity–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29 (2),109–123.

tzkowitz, H., Schuler Jnr, E., Gulbrandsen, M., 2000a. The evolutionof the entrepreneurial university. In: Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T. (Eds.),The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy. SRHE andOpen University Press, Buckingham, pp. 40–60.

tzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B.R.C., 2000b. Thefuture of the university and the university of the future: evolutionof ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2),313–330.

isher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J., House, D., 2001. Changes inacademy/industry/state relations in Canada: the creation and devel-opment of the Networks of Excellence. Minerva 39 (3), 299–325.

reeman, C., 1997. The diversity of national research systems. In:Barre, R.e.a. (Ed.), Science in Tommorow’s Europe. EconomicaInternational, Paris, pp. 5–32.

untowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1993. Science for the post-normal age.Futures 25, 735–755.

ibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P.,Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynam-ics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE,
London.
odin, B., 1998. Writing performative history: the new new Atlantis?Social Studies of Science 28 (3), 465–483.

odin, B., Gingras, Y., 2000. The place of universities in the systemof knowledge production. Research Policy 29 (2), 273–278.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760 759

Hemlin, S., Rasmussen, S.B., 2006. The shift in academic qualitycontrol. Science Technology and Human Values 31 (2), 173–198.

Hicks, D.M., Katz, J.S., 1996. Where is science going? Science Tech-nology and Human Values 21 (4), 379–406.

Huff, A.S., 2000. Changes in organizational knowledge production.Academy of Management Review 25 (2), 288–293.

Irvine, J., Martin, B.R., 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Win-ners. Frances Pinter, London.

Jacob, M., 2000. ‘Mode 2’ in context: the contract researcher, theuniversity and the knowledge society. In: Jacob, M., Hellstrom,T. (Eds.), The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy.SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 11–27.

Jansen, J.D., 2002. Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: TakingGibbons on a walk through a South African University. HigherEducation 43 (4), 507–521.

Kaufmann, A., Todtling, F., 2001. Science-industry interaction inthe process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossingbetween systems. Research Policy 30 (5), 791–804.

Kleinman, D.L., Vallas, S.P., 2001. Science, capitalism, and the riseof the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowl-edge production in the United States. Theory and Society 30 (4),451–492.

Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2006. The inclusion of stakeholderknowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climatechange. Climate Change 75, 359–389.

Lawrence, R.J., Despres, C., 2004. Futures of transdisciplinarity.Futures 36, 397–405.

Lee, S., Bozeman, B., 2005. The impact of research collaboration onscientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35 (5), 673–702.

Lenhard, J., Lucking, H., Schwechheimer, H., 2006. Expert knowledge,Mode-2 and scientific disciplines: two contrasting views. Scienceand Public Policy 33 (5), 341–350.

Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M., 2006. Triple Helix indicators ofknowledge-based innovation systems: introduction to the specialissue. Research Policy 35 (10), 1441–1449.

Martin, B.R., 2003. The changing social contract for science and theevolution of the university. In: Guena, A., Salter, A., Steinmueller,W.E. (Eds.), Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales forFunding and Governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 7–29.

Meeus, M., Oerlemans, L.A.G., Hage, J., 2004. Industry-public knowl-edge infrastructure interaction: intra- and inter-organizationalexplanations of interactive learning. Industry and Innovation 11(4), 327–352.

Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U., 1998. Science-based technologies:university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27(8), 835–851.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-Thinking Science:Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press,Cambridge.

Pestre, D., 2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: towardsa more political and social reading. Minerva 41, 245–261.

Pohl, C., 2005. Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmentalresearch. Futures 37, 1159–1178.

Regeer, B.J., Bunders, J.F.G., 2003. The epistemology of transdis-ciplinary research: from knowledge integration to communitiesof practice. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review 5 (2),98–118.

Rip, A., 1989. In: Korthals, M. (Ed.), Sturing en Stuurbaarheid vande Wetenschappen. Het Model van de Starnbergers. Boom/OpenUniversiteit, Meppel/Heerlen, Wetenschapsleer, pp. 187–206.

Rip, A., 1997. A cognitive approach to relevance of science. SocialScience Information 36 (4), 615–640.

Researc
Rip, A., 2000. Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowl-edge production. In: Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T. (Eds.), The Future ofKnowledge Production in the Academy. SRHE and Open Univer-sity Press, Buckingham, pp. 28–39.

Rip, A., 2002a. Regional innovation systems and the advent of strategicscience. Journal of Technology Transfer 27, 123–131.

Rip, A., 2002b. Science for the 21st century. In: Tindemans, P.,Verrijn-Stuart, A., Visser, R. (Eds.), The Future of Science andthe Humanities. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 99–148.

Rip, A., 2004. Strategic research, post-modern universitiesand research training. Higher Education Policy 17 (2),153–166.

Schafer, W., 1983. Normative finalization. In: Bohme, G., Van denDaele, W., Hohlfeld, R., Krohn, W., Schafer, W. (Eds.), Finalizationin Science. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 207–231.

Shapley, D., Roy, R., 1985. Lost at the Frontier. ISI Press, Philadelphia.Shinn, T., 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge:

prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies ofScience 32 (4), 599–614.

Slaughter, S., Leslie, L.L., 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics,Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. The John HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore.

Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments ininnovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innova-tion Policy 1 (1/2), 4–32.

Spaapen, J., 1995. Research for Society: Towards a Method for the
Assessment of Research in a Policy Context. University of Ams-terdam, Amsterdam.
Starkey, K., Madan, P., 2001. Bridging the relevance gap: aligningstakeholders in the future of management research. British Journalof Management 12 (s1), s3–s26.

h Policy 37 (2008) 740–760

Stengers, I., 1997. Power and Invention: Situating Science. Universityof Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Stokes, D.E., 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technolog-ical Innovation. Brookings Institution Press.

Tuunainen, J., 2005. Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate onthe mutation of science and university. Higher Education 50 (2),275–298.

Van der Sluijs, J.P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz,J., Risbey, J., 2005. Combining quantitative and qualitative mea-sures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: theNUSAP system. Risk Analysis 25 (2), 481–492.

Van Lente, H., Rip, A., 1998. The rise of membrane technology:from rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science 28 (2),221–254.

VSNU/NWO/KNAW, 2003. Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003–2009for Public Research Organisations.

Wamelink, F., Spaapen, J., 1999. De evaluatie van Universitair Onder-zoek: Methodiek voor het Incorporeren van de Maatschappelijkewaarde van Onderzoek (No. NRLO 99/12). Nationale Raad voorLandbouwkundig Onderzoek, Den Haag.

Weingart, P., 1997. From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in newbottles? Social Science Information 36 (4), 591–613.

Whitley, R., 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of theSciences. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Yearley, S., 2005. Making Sense of Science: Understanding the SocialStudy of Science. Sage, London.

Ziman, J., 1994. Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady
State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ziman, J., 2000. Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ziman, J., 2003. Non-instrumental roles of science. Science and Engi-neering Ethics 9 (1), 17–27.

Documents

Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production