Knowledge Production

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

The taxonomy of knowledge production models consists of what Michael Gibbons refers to as “mode 1” and “mode 2.” In mode 1, the research inquiry follows the set of ideas, values, methods, and norms defined by a discipline, where the mechanism of peer review acts as a quality control to add new knowledge to the existing scholarly base. This mode is an exemplum of present-day university research assessment and promotion criteria. Mode 2 differs in terms of its focus on problems in formulating the research inquiry and on context in identifying the solution space, which reflects the rise of transnationalism in research and transcendence of conventional academic divisions when undertaking social inquiry, also known as multidisciplinarity. This mode accommodates the commoditization of research, crossing of disciplines and sector lines, multiple stakeholder interests, and the involvement of social movements, activists, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Notable examples of models belonging to mode 2 include the innovation system that dominates science and technology; the “triple-helix” that reflects university–industry-state research and development partnerships and postacademic, which describes the emergence of new disciplines. The new models of knowledge production mirror the changes in research practices in the domains of biotechnology, materials science, and microelectronics and are often seen as enablers for communication between science and practice.

Although the two modes described above diverge on the nature and scope of the research inquiry and in their dissemination culture, they unify in the pursuit of truth as determined by the logical framework of the scientific method. However, critics argue that the categories and structures that have exercised a generative power over the production of knowledge about the world over the past three centuries fail to acknowledge the importance of (and sometimes subdue) indigenous systems of knowledge. For instance, in industrialized nations, innovation is related to formal systems such as the university or research laboratory, whereas in developing nations innovation occurs within informal traditional systems of knowledge that evolve through the contributions [Page 514]of grassroots innovators such as farmers, artisans, nomads, indigenous peoples, and ethnic groups. The accepted order of “knowing and doing things” as defined by modes 1 and 2 precludes these distinct knowledge production models, and denies them space within the recognized body of knowledge. One can see indicators of change within the gray literature of NGOs that incorporates community knowledge and promotes global knowledge production tools such as information and communications technology (ICT) and notions of appropriate technology. However, a fundamental shift requires an intervention similar to that of the 17th-century groups of modernizers who became interested in new ideas and started to turn away from Aristotle and other ancient texts and followed new paths like Descartes' program of inquiry or Francis Bacon's vision that science could be used to improve the lives of people.

...