DMCA
Quality Control and Validation Boundaries in a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government: 'Mode 2' And the . . .
| Citations: | 3 - 0 self |
BibTeX
@MISC{Fujigaki_qualitycontrol,
author = {Yuko Fujigaki and Loet Leydesdorff},
title = {Quality Control and Validation Boundaries in a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government: 'Mode 2' And the . . . },
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
How is quality control organized in the new "Mode 2" of the production of scientific knowledge? When institutional boundaries are increasingly blurred in a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations, criteria for quality control in the production of scientific knowledge can be expected to change at the interfaces. The categorization in terms of two modes of knowledge production was introduced by Gibbons et al. (1994) in order to describe changes in the networks of scientific communications (funding patterns, research configurations, styles of knowledge management, etc.). These changes were mainly specified as institutional parameters in order to deal with the subjects of R&D management and S&T policies, that is, ex ante (Spiegel-Ring 1973; Van den Daele et al. 1979). We focus on the "validation boundaries" emerging from the differences between Mode 1 and Mode 2; that is, on the criteria for quality control that can analytically and reflexively be brought to the fore ex post. The shift from an institutional frame of reference to a focus on the dynamics of communications enables us to clarify several problems in the discussion of the future of university research.
Keyphrases
quality control validation boundary triple helix scientific knowledge research configuration several problem new mode knowledge management scientific communication institutional boundary university-industry-government relation communication enables knowledge production university research institutional frame fore ex post institutional parameter
