Managing the Institutionalisation of Mode 2 Knowledge Production

The combination of decreasing public allocations to universities with relevance pressure from both governments and private corporations has contributed to the rise of the phenomenon of Mode 2 knowledge production. Many Mode 2 researchers have been encouraged and stimulated to experiment with new forms of organizing the production of knowledge while remaining within the context of the traditional European university. This has resulted in the emergence of number of new institutional formats including university based research centers or institutes and long-term research programs have emerged. While there has been a lively debate about the transitions in the landscape of knowledge production, it has failed to address its organizational details. A detailed look at transition cases pushed forward by political programs promoting knowledge exchange between university and industry shows that the institutionalization of Mode 2 is accompanied by significant problems for the management of research and the production of knowledge.

[1]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University , 2003 .

[2]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Future governance of innovation policy in Europe — three scenarios , 2001 .

[3]  Teresa R. Behrens,et al.  Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome , 2001 .

[4]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[5]  Gerard Delanty.  Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society , 2001 .

[6]  Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: the decreasing role of public research institutes , 2000 .

[7]  U. Sandström,et al.  Inertia and change in Scandinavian public-sector research systems: the case of biotechnology , 2000 .

[8]  David Demeritt,et al.  The new social contract for science: Accountability, relevance, and value in US and UK science and research policy , 2000 .

[9]  A. Rip,et al.  Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science , 2000 .

[10]  J. Ziman.  Real Science: What It Is and What It Means , 2000 .

[11]  David Charles,et al.  Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property , 1999 .

[12]  The Uses of Relevance: Thoughts on a Reflexive Sociology , 1999 .

[13]  Reiner Martin.  The Regional Dimension in European Public Policy: Convergence or Divergence? , 1999 .

[14]  B. Godin.  Writing Performative History: , 1998 .

[15]  R. Pritchard.  Academic Freedom and Autonomy in the United Kingdom and Germany , 1998 .

[16]  M. Sharp,et al.  Technology Policy in the European Union , 1998 .

[17]  P. Weingart.  From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles? , 1997 .

[18]  Larry L. Leslie,et al.  Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University , 1997 .

[19]  Robert M. Grant,et al.  The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management practice , 1997 .

[20]  Jennifer Platt.  Has Funding Made a Difference to Research Methods? , 1996 .

[21]  B. Rappert.  Shifting notions of accountability in public- and private-sector research in the UK: Some central concerns , 1995 .

[22]  Charles Despres,et al.  Human resource management in the knowledge age , 1995 .

[23]  S. Shapin,et al.  A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. , 1997 .

[24]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .