Mode 2

For the prehistoric stone tool industry, see Acheulean.

In 2001 Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons published Re-thinking science: knowledge in an age
of uncertainty (Polity) in which they extend their analysis
Mode 2 is a term from the sociology of science which
refers to the way (scientic) knowledge is produced. It to the implications of mode 2 knowledge production for
society.
contrasts with Mode 1 production of knowledge.
In Mode 2 multidisciplinary teams are brought together
for short periods of time to work on specic problems in
the real world for knowledge production. This 'mode' can
be explained by the way research funds are distributed
among scientists and how scientists focus on obtaining
these funds. In contrast, Mode 1 is knowledge production
which is motivated by scientic knowledge alone (fundamental research) and which is not bothered by the applicability of its ndings. It is also founded on a conceptualization of science as separated into discrete disciplines
(e.g., a biologist does not bother about chemistry).

2 Reception
While the notion of mode 2 knowledge production has
attracted considerable interest, it has not been universally accepted in the terms put forth by Gibbons and colleagues. Scholars in science policy studies have pointed
to three types of problems with the concept of Mode 2;
these problems regarded its empirical validity, its conceptual strength, and its political value (Hessels and Van
Lente, 2008).

The term was coined in 1994 by Michael Gibbons,

Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Concerning the empirical validity of the Mode 2 claims,
Peter Scott and Martin Trow in their book The new pro- Etzkowitz & Leydesdor (2000:116) argue
duction of knowledge: the dynamics of science and reThe so-called Mode 2 is not new; it is the
search in contemporary societies (Sage).
original format of science (or art) before its
academic institutionalization in the 19th century. Another question to be answered is why
1 The concept
Mode 1 has arisen after Mode 2: the original organizational and institutional basis of science, consisting of networks and invisible colGibbons and colleagues argued that a new form of knowlleges. Where have these ideas, of the scientist
edge production began emerging in the mid-20th century
as the isolated individual and of science sepathat was context-driven, problem-focused and interdiscirated from the interests of society, come from?
plinary. It involved multidisciplinary teams that worked
Mode 2 represents the material base of science,
together for short periods of time on specic problems
how it actually operates. Mode 1 is a construct,
in the real world. Gibbons and his colleagues labelled
built upon that base in order to justify autonthis mode 2 knowledge production. He and his colomy for science, especially in an earlier era
leagues distinguished this from traditional research, lawhen it was still a fragile institution and needed
belled mode 1, which is academic, investigator-initiated
all the help it could get (references omitted).
and discipline-based knowledge production. Limoges
(1996:14-15) wrote that -

In the same article Etzkowitz & Leydesdor (2000:111)

use the notion of the triple helix of the nation state,
academia and industry to explain innovation, the development of new technology and knowledge transfer. Etzkowitz & Leydesdor (2000:118) argue that The Triple
Helix overlay provides a model at the level of social structure for the explanation of Mode 2 as an historically
emerging structure for the production of scientic knowledge, and its relation to Mode 1.

We now speak of 'context-driven' research,

meaning 'research carried out in a context
of application, arising from the very work
of problem solving and not governed by the
paradigms of traditional disciplines of knowledge.

John Ziman drew a similar distinction between academic Steve Fuller, in his book The Governance of Science
science and post-academic science in his 2000 book Real (Chapter 5) has criticised the 'Modists view of the hisScience (Cambridge).
tory of science because they wrongly give the impression
1

4 FURTHER READING

that mode 1 dates back to seventeenth-century Scientic

Revolution whereas mode 2 is traced to the end of either World War II or the cold war, whereas in fact the
two modes were institutionalized only within a generation of each other (the third and the fourth quarters of
the nineteenth century, respectively). Fuller claims that
the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, jointly funded
by the state, the industry and the universities, predated todays triple helix institutions by an entire century.

Nowotny, Helga; Peter Scott & Michael Gibbons

(2001). Rethinking science: knowledge in an age
of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity. ISBN 0-74562607-6.

Regarding the conceptual strength of Mode 2, it has been

argued that the coherence of its ve features is questionable. There might be a lot of multi-disciplinary, application oriented research that does not show organizational
diversity or novel types of quality control (Rip, 2002).

Terry Shinn, (2002) The Triple Helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology, Social Studies of Science, Vol
32, pp. 599614

Another problem with Mode 2 is that it lends itself to

a normative reading. Several authors have criticized the
way Gibbons and his co-authors seem to blend descriptive
and normative elements. According to Godin (1998), the
Mode 2 talk is more a political ideology than a descriptive
theory. Similarly, Shinn (2002:604) complains: 'Instead
of theory or data, the New Production of Knowledge both book and concept - seems tinged with political commitment'.
Some writers have invented a mode 3 knowledge, which
is mostly used to refer to emotional knowledge or social
knowledge. But these writers miss the whole point of
Gibbons et al. which was not to catalogue types of knowledge but to describe types of knowledge production or
research .

References
Henry Etzkowitz & Loet Leydesdor, (2000) The
dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and
Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of universityindustry
government relations, * Research Policy, vol 29, pp
109123.
Fuller, Steve, The Governance of Science. (2000).
Open University Press. Buckingham. ISBN 0-33520234-9.
Gibbons, Michael; Camille Limoges; Helga
Nowotny; Simon Schwartzman; Peter Scott; Martin
Trow (1994). The new production of knowledge: the
dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. London: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-7794-8.
Benoit Godin, (1998) Writing performative history:
the new new Atlantis?, Social Studies of Science, vol
28, pp 465483
Laurens Hessels and Harro van Lente, (2008) Rethinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda, Research Policy, vol 37,
pp 740760

Arie Rip, (2002) Science for the 21st century. In:

Tindemans, P., Verrijn-Stuart, A., Visser, R. (Eds.),
The Future of Science and the Humanities, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 99148

Ziman, John (2000). Real Science. What it is, and

what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-521-89310-0.

4 Further reading
Limoges, Camille (1996). Luniversit la croise
des chemins : une mission armer, une gestion rformer. Quebec: Actes du colloque ACFAS.CSE.CST, Gouvernement du Qubec Ministre de l'ducation.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

5.1

Text

Mode 2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode%202?oldid=617534340 Contributors: Ronz, Rl, Buridan, JesseW, Blashyrk, Centrx,
Rich Farmbrough, Mdd, Grenavitar, LFaraone, AlbertWaninge, Elmer Clark, Bhny, Thiseye, Wakeford, Allens, SmackBot, Royalguard11,
Gavin Moodie, Ryulong, Sestoft, Qwarto, Gavia immer, Susan Elisabeth McDonald, Exiledone, VolkovBot, Hans Vaihinger, Martarius, Xme, Merodack, Laurenshessels, Addbot, Palming, Lightbot, Trinitrix, Citation bot, LilHelpa, Tbhotch, Sabeen2331, Hmainsbot1,
Monkbot, Promagnon and Anonymous: 15

5.2

Images

File:Edit-clear.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: ? Contributors: The Tango! Desktop

Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)

5.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0