Mode 2

Mode 2 is a concept of science and research was developed in 1994 by Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott, Michael Gibbons, among other things as a concept to describe the contemporary production of scientific knowledge.

Concept

According to the authors developed parallel to the traditional form of science, which they refer to as Mode 1, a new model of scientific knowledge production, which they call Mode 2. They describe the traditional concept as hierarchical, disciplinary, homogeneous, and academically. In addition, see Mode 1 before a strict separation between scientific and social actors. The aim is to produce scientifically verified knowledge. The conservative paradigm was finally completed by the new concept of knowledge production. The transition between the two models is fluent, both forms can coexist side by side and.

Characteristics

Sciences today operate globally. Research will be held in short-term projects and is problem-oriented applied, according to the logic of research funding. This leads to a growing trans -disciplinary collaboration, which may lead to a relative openness of the research field. Growing international competition leads to an increase in national and international collaborations. Added to this is that the distribution of knowledge is to be done for new points of view.

The new mode of knowledge production expected to provide not only safer, but also socially robust knowledge. It is highly contextualized. Market, society and other actors appear as integral parts of the production of knowledge. It is transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, anti-hierarchical, raises the social responsibility as well as a wide range of quality control. This also means that the relevance and quality are no longer solely determined by scientific institutions.

Conceptualization

The authors or authors speak of a change in the science system, which was observed from the mid-19th century. The increasing commercialization of research resulted from increased private financing, which invested primarily in applied research. Knowledge became the economic good and part of the globalization process. Researchers saw and are confronted by an increased volume of evaluation and rankings with an increasing scientific and social pressure to justify. There is a risk that the creativity and the choice of research topics and methods is greatly narrows by the permanent control.

Evaluation surveys are usually given by organizations in order, which fund the research. This client of research evaluations, however, are not themselves experts or experts. Nowotny refers in this connection to the low attention paid to the evaluation and the dissemination of knowledge.

View

The subscribed in Mode 2 image of science can explain, among other things, by the phenomenon of mass education. The thronging academics or academics find their place in the private sector, private research companies are increasingly becoming serious competition for universities and government research institutions. Competition leads to a necessary redesign of the universities and their public appearance. In addition, there will be a restructuring of knowledge through institutions that take on the production and use of knowledge influence. This will rise to a new demand for knowledge management and knowledge councils that determine the priorities and the funds used, so the writers. In addition, reference is made to the pioneering role of the human sciences in the production of knowledge: the agency had worked before the change shown in Mode 2 with specific reflection patterns, which were not internalized in other scientific disciplines and were considered critical.

Reception

The concept has attracted the interest of many of Research, at the same time but also some criticism.

According to several authors mixed mode 2 normative and descriptive elements. Shinn and compare Godin model with a political ideology, instead of an explanatory theory. ( Godin 1998, Shinn 2002)

After Hessels and van Lente Mode 2 shows some important changes in the science system. These include its interactions with other sectors of society, or the change in the choice of research programs. However, the model fails due to conceptual problems. Thus, there exist no empirical evidence to support the claims of Mode 2 Its dynamics are also not universal, vary according to institutions, disciplines and nations. Furthermore, some diagnoses of the concept be doubted. For example, the change in scientific method, laboratory ethics and epistemology. ( Hessels, Van Lente 2008)

Hessels and van Lente finally asking for research of the claim of the model to about transdisciplinarity or reflexivity. The following questions appear in the course of as relevant, to what extent scientific disciplines actually cooperate? Developed a practice of flexible teamwork? Can we really speak of a new laboratory ethics? Will researchers more aware regarding the social impact of their work? ( Hessels, Van Lente 2008)

In addition, the existence of a detectable change in the quality of scientific research ( Hessels, Van Lente 2008) and, according to Rip, their organizational diversity should be questioned. ( Rip 2002)

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff describe Mode 2 as the initial treatment of science, in their academic institutionalization in the 19th century. The model represents the primary organizational and institutional basis of research, consisting of networks and associations, dar. It represents therefore the starting point of science. Mode 1 has been built on this base to rechtzufertigen scientific autonomy. ( Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff 2000)

Fuller criticized the erroneous dating Nowotny, Scott, Gibbons ', among others, which associate with the first model of the 17th century. In fact, was both Mode 1, Mode 2 and institutionalized in the 19th century. ( Fuller 2000)