Editorial Policy Content"Science, Technology & Innovation Studies" is a reviewed bi-annual online journal that publishes analytical, theoretical and methodological studies
- on the creation and use of scientific knowledge and its relation to society,
- on the development of technology and its social impact and control,
- on innovation in industry and in the public sector.
The articles are published in English. Anonymous double blind peer review is to assure high quality of all articles in this online journal. Submissions are reviewed by two external peers.
Each issue of the journal contains three to four articles of no more than 20 pages, which can be downloaded free of charge as PDF files.
Special IssuesAdditionally to the two regular numbers of the journal, "Science, Technology & Innovation Studies" plans to publish one special issue per year with a specific thematic focus. This special issue will be published under the responsibility of a guest editor, who is also responsible for the organisation of the peer review process. Proposals are welcome.
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. T...
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 o...
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 conce...
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 pote...
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 regula...
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,...
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 ...
- Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer
University of Duisburg-Essen
- Raymund Werle
Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne
- Johannes Weyer
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
- Volker Schneider
University of Konstanz
- Peter Weingart
University of Bielefeld
Editorial Staff (at TU Dortmund)Jens Kroniger
Technical support, web publishing