Issue 1

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/2003/27503

The last issue of STI-Studies (vol. 5, no. 2) contained two articles on mode 2 issues, written by Janus Hansen and Monika Kurath, addressing the theoretical basis as well as the empirical foundation of this concept.
The editors of STI-Studies received a substantial number of comments on these two articles indicating that the mode 2 debate is still vivid – and that relevant issues still are contested such as the de-differentiation thesis or the question of legitimacy of public participation.
Following the two main articles of this issue, readers will find a discussion section with contributions of Laurens Hessels and Harro van Lente, Arie Rip, Peter Wehling, and finally two comments of Janus Hansen and Monika Kurath on each other’s article. All of them point to the value and the additional insights of the current debate, but also to some weaknesses of Hansen’s proposal to include systems theory as well as of Kurath’s attempt to measure social robustness.
The two main articles also refer to the interaction of science and society. In his paper "Emerging Technologies and Waiting Games", Haico te Kulve presents a case study of institutional entrepreneurship and the evolution of rules and practices of using emergent technologies, such as nanotechnology, in the food packaging sector.
In their paper "Strategies for the Scientific Progress of the Developing Countries in the New Millennium", Vuk Uskokovic, Milica Ševkušic and Dragan P. Uskokovic put forward the question, how developing countries can catch up or even leap-frog the leading states by mobilizing science – and at the same time avoid the pitfalls and risks of modernization which have shown up in many developed countries.
Many thanks to Franziska Perlick for language assistance, Fabian Lüke for layout editing, and Jens Kroniger for web publishing.

News

Editors

Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer
University of Duisburg-Essen
Raymund Werle
Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne
Johannes Weyer
TU Dortmund

Editorial Advisory Board

Arno Bammé
Interuniversity Institute, Klagenfurt
Armin Grunwald
Research Centre Karlsruhe
Dorothea Jansen
University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer
Regine Kollek
University of Hamburg
Werner Rammert
TU Berlin
Volker Schneider
University of Konstanz
Peter Weingart
University of Bielefeld

Editorial Staff (at TU Dortmund)

Jens Kroniger
Technical support, web publishing

Browse

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Science, Technology & Innovation Studies Vol. 6 (2010), No 1 (August)
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-08-18)
Emerging Technologies and Waiting Games
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) te Kulve, Haico
While nanotechnologies are expected to generate wonderful benefits for food packaging, there is reluctance in the uptake of these promises. Still, things are changing and there are dedicated attempts – by institutional entrepreneurs – to shape future embedding of these new technologies. Thus one can examine the evolution of sectoral changes before the actual introduction of new and emerging technologies, which is relevant for studies on emerging technologies and industrial change processes. The main question of this paper is how institutional entrepreneurship linking up with emerging nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector has evolved and contributed to changes at the sectoral level. To do so, I mapped instances of institutional entrepreneurship and constructed a narrative of the evolution of these initiatives, taking a broad view of institutional entrepreneurship-in-context. I found a pattern of a succession of waves of initiatives which contributed to an evolving patchwork of rules and practices. This patchwork will, eventually, shape societal embedding of nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector.
Mode 2: Theory or Social Diagnosis?
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Kurath, Monika
Janus Hansen’s essay examines in how far the Mode 2 concept (Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al. 2001) is applicable as a theoretical or analytical concept for a cross-national comparison of public engagement practices. Influenced by reflections on socially robust knowledge production and the role of science in society by Gibbons and Nowotny et al., Hansen begins his essay with the observation of a rising demand for public engagement (Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al. 2001). In the course of the article he confronts the Mode 2 concept with competing sociological approaches, in particular Luhmann’s systems theoretical approach (Luhmann 1984) and Jasanoff’s concept of political culture (Jasanoff 2005).
Social Robustness as Analytical Tool or Normative Standard?
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Hansen, Janus
A recent issue of STI-Studies (vol. 5, no. 2) contained two articles, which both addressed the so-called ‘Mode 2-diagnosis’ by Nowotny et al. (2001). In particular, they both made reference to the affiliated concept of ‘social robustness’. Given this topical overlap, the editors of STI-Studies encouraged the authors of the two articles to provide comments on each other’s paper. My own paper (Hansen 2009) is concerned primarily with the theoretical consistency and analytical value of the concept of ‘social robustness’ for comparative analysis of public engagement processes, and was conceived as an attempt to lay a conceptual ground for ongoing empirical work. In this respect, Monica Kurath’s paper is ahead of mine, as it presents a completed comparative study of nano- science governance based on the concept of social robustness (Kurath 2009). In my view, Kurath’s paper thus constitutes a fruitful step beyond my own reflections. I am pleased to note that her analysis indeed addresses a number of the dimensions I suggest as central for empirical inquiries in the final pages of my paper, such as institutional embedding, procedural design, and discursive dynamics, and does so in a grounded and hands-on manner. However, her more operational approach to questions I pose only at an abstract and analytical level also illustrates some of the caveats I believe are entailed in applying the concept of ‘social robustness’ for comparative empirical analysis. I shall discuss some of these in the following. However, I should emphasize that I am keenly aware that Kurath has faced the more challenging task of leaving the academic office and confront theories with actual, social practice. This inevitably makes matters more complicated compared to isolated theoretical reflection. Therefore, the following comments should be read as constructive suggestions for further work, not as a polemic against the work done by Kurath.
How to Make the Mode 2 Thesis Sociologically More Robust?
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Wehling, Peter
Over the last years, the intense and vivid debates which had developed around the so called mode 2 thesis after the publication of “The New Production of Knowledge” (Gibbons et al. 1994) and “Re-Thinking Science” (Nowotny et al. 2001) seem to have significantly abated. Nevertheless, the controversial issues that were raised in those disputes are, of course, far from settled or out-dated. Quite to the contrary, the questions concerning the changing relations of science and society and the potential emergence of new forms of knowledge production and expertise, termed “socially robust knowledge” and “socially distributed expertise” by Nowotny et al. (2001), still are highly relevant for STS. Given this background, the publication of Monika Kurath’s (2009) and Janus Hansen’s (2009) papers in the last issue of STI-Studies offers a good chance to reconsider these issues from some temporal distance. In my comment, I will make some remarks on how the mode 2 thesis is addressed and criticised in each of the two papers and then, in my short conclusion, argue for a primarily heuristic use of this thesis and the concepts mentioned above.
Social Robustness and the Mode 2 Diagnosis
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Rip, Arie
The Hansen and Kurath articles in the December 2009 issue have public engagement as their topic, and mobilize the notion of ‘social robustness’ as discussed by Helga Nowotny, one of the Mode 2 authors (see Nowotny et al. 2001). Janus Hansen used it as a link with public engagement and offered a plea for comparative studies which he located in a conceptual critique of the Mode 2 thesis. Monika Kurath decided to use her version of the notion of ‘social robustness’ to evaluate attempts at regulation of, and engagement with, nanosciences and nanotechnologies, conjuring up ratings for each of the cases she described.
The Mixed Blessing of Mode 2 Knowledge Production
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Hessels, Laurens K.; van Lente, Harro
The notion of Mode 2 knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994, Nowotny et al. 2001) already has a remarkable history. It was launched fifteen years ago to capture the ongoing changes in the world of science, science policy and the knowledge economy at large. While it is not the only attempt to make sense of the change, it definitively is the most popular. Since its publication in 1994, ‘The New Production of Knowledge’ (Gibbons et al. 1994), which has coined the notions of Mode 1 and Mode 2, has received almost 1900 citations in scientific journals (see Figure 1). It is a blessing that it has helped both scholars and policymakers to get a grip on the profound changes going on in contemporary science systems. But the concept of Mode 2 knowledge production also proved to be a mixed blessing by creating confusion and by conflating interrelated yet independent trends.
Strategies for the Scientific Progress of the Developing Countries in the New Millenium
(Technische Universität Dortmund, 2010-11-29) Uskokovic, Vuk; Sevkusic, Milica; Uskokovic, Dragan P.
The underlying premise of this essay is the hypothesis that quality and significance of scientific research in any given society could be used as mirrors reflecting its true prosperity. By comparing the two cases of comparatively prosperous scientific management of South Korea and Slovenia, with the example of Serbia, illustrating the poor scientific and industrial productivity typically faced by the developing countries, a few general guidelines for the evolution of a society towards higher scientific and social prominence are outlined. It is argued that the most favourable pattern of growth should be based on the parallel progress in control of scientific policies on one side and the excellence of scientific and basic education on the other. The “leapfrog” tactics, according to which the less developed countries should learn from the natural cycle of alternate progressions and regressions that the developed countries experience, is especially highlighted. Applied research is demonstrated to be most productive when it is carried out on top of already established and prolific infrastructural and industrial bases. Examples are given in favour of the fact that the technological design and industrial solutions shown as successful in the context of a developed society, often turn out to be impractical and inefficient when straightforwardly transformed to less developed social settings. As a result, the strategy of adjustment of production capacities to local needs is advised to be considered when implementing a new technology on different social, political and economic grounds. Finally, it is concluded that to provide conditions for effective transfer and implementation of advanced know-how and novel technologies, embedment into international science and engineering networks is required as much as strong and sustainable local scientific and technological bases.

Browse

Recent Submissions