Quality control is an important and integrated part of the scientific system. However, developments in science and society are changing quality control into quality monitoring. New, virtual, and fluid organizational forms are emerging. Common boundaries are seen as being broken down as, for example, in the “triple helix” and the “mode 2” concepts. The stakeholders in science are showing an interest in being more involved in science. They want their evaluation criteria to be used, and they want evaluations to be done on a regular basis because they do not trust the new scientific institutions to be left on their own. Quality monitoring changes the requirements for conducting evaluations as part of quality control. Assessing the societal value of research becomes increasingly important. Finally, quality monitoring emphasizes organizational learning rather than controlling quality in scientific organizations.
Assembly of Director Generals of the Danish Government Research Institutes. 2000. Sektorforskningen 1999/2000 [sectoral research 1999/2000]. Report from the Assembly of Director Generals of the Danish Government Research Institutes, Tjele, Denmark.
2.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society. London: Sage.
3.
Bozeman, B., and J. Rogers. 2001. “Knowledge value alliances”: An alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values26 (1): 23-55.
4.
Braun, D.1993. Who governs intermediate agencies? Principal agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy13 (2): 135-162.
5.
Callon, M.1998. The laws of the market. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
6.
Calvert, J.2000. Is there a role for “basic research” in Mode 2?VEST Tidskrift för Vetenskapsoch Teknikstudier13 (3-4): 35-51.
7.
Carlson, B. W.1997. Innovation and the modern corporation: From heroic invention to industrial science. In Science in the twentieth century, ed. J. Krige and D. Pestre, 203-226. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
8.
Castells, M.2000. The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
9.
Clegg, S. R., C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord, eds. 1996. Handbook of organisation studies. London: Sage.
10.
Cohen, L., J. McAuley, and J. Duberley. 2001. Continuity and discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology, and Human Values26 (2): 145-166.
11.
Crane, D.1969. Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Sociological Review34:335-352.
12.
Daft, R. L.1998. Essentials of organization theory and design. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
13.
Dator, J.1998. The futures of universities: Ivied halls, virtual malls, or theme parks?Futures30 (7): 615-623.
14.
Delanty, G.1998. The idea of the university in the global era: From knowledge as an end to the end of knowledge. Social Epistemology12 (1): 3-25.
15.
Dodgson, M.1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational Studies14 (3): 375-394.
16.
Edqvist, C., ed. 1997. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organisations. London: Pinter.
17.
Elzinga, A.1988. The consequences of evaluation for academic research. Science Studies1:5-14.
18.
Elzinga, A. 1994. Reflections on research evaluation. Paper presented at the Nordic Research Symposium Studies of Research Evaluation, Copenhagen, Denmark.
19.
Etzkowitz, H.1996. International conference report: A triple helix of academic-industry-government relations. Technology Access Report February:8-10.
20.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1997. Universities in the global knowledge economy. In Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations, ed. H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, 1-8. London: Pinter
21.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy29:109-123.
22.
Foss Hansen, H., and S. Hemlin. 2001. Peer review processer og forskningskvalitet: Hvad kan vi lære af forskning om forskning [Peer review processes and research quality: What can we learn from research on research]. Oplæg till diskussion i Danmarks Grundforskningsfond, Köbenhavn. Institut før Statskundskab, Københavns universitet.
23.
Frederiksen, F., F. Hansson, and S. Wenneberg. 2001. Knowledge assessment in the agora. MPP Working Paper No. 14/2001. Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.
24.
Fuller, Steve. 1992. Social epistemology and the research agenda of science studies. In Science in practice and culture, ed. Andrew Pickering, 390-428. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gallison, P.1997. The trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In Image-logic: A material culture of microphysics, ed. Peter Gallison, 781-845. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Gibbons, M.1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature402: C81-C84.
28.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
29.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
30.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
31.
Godin, B.1998. Writing performative history: The new “New Atlantis.”Social Studies of Science28 (3): 465-483.
32.
Goodman, P. S., and R. M. Cyert. 1997. Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organisational perspective. Organizational Dynamics26 (4): 45-57.
33.
Greenhill, A. G.1998. Commodifying virtual classrooms, universities and virtual organisational existence. Virtual University Journal1:150-159.
34.
Grint, K.1997. Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
Gulddahl Rasmussen, J.2000. Changes in organizing and managing research in universities: Reconstruction or rediscovery. Tertiary Education and Management6:281-287.
36.
Guston, D. H.2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Guston, D. H., and K. Kenniston. 1994. The fragile contract. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
Hansen, H. F. 1994. Evaluation of research: Performance control, organisational learning and/or politics? Paper presented at Studies on Research Evaluation, Copenhagen.
39.
Hansen, H. F., and F. Borum. 1999. The construction and standardization of evaluation: The case of the Danish university sector. Evaluation5 (3): 303-329.
40.
Harvey, C., and J. Denton. 1999. To come of age: The antecedents of organisational learning. Journal of Management Studies36 (7): 897-918.
41.
Hellström, T., and M. Jacob. 2001. Policy uncertainty and risk: Conceptual developments and approaches. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
42.
Hemlin, S.1993. Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist: A questionnaire study. Scientometrics27 (1): 3-18.
43.
Hemlin, S.1996. Research on research evaluation. Social Epistemology10:209-250.
44.
Hemlin, S.2001. Organisational aspects of mode 2/triple helix knowledge production. In Neue Formen der Wissenserzeugung, ed. G. Bender, 181-200. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
45.
Hemlin, S., and L. Widenberg. 2001. Ledningen och organiserandet av “den nya kunskapsproduktionen.” En intervjustudie av ledare för organisationer som befinner sig i en mode 2/triple helix kontext [The leadership and organizing of the “new knowledge production.” An interview study of leaders of organizations in a mode 2/triple helix context]. VEST Tidskrift för Vetenskaps-och Teknikstudier14 (3-4): 43-67.
46.
Hood, C.1995. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20 (2/3): 93-109.
47.
Jacob, M.1997. Life in the triple helix: The contract researcher, the university and the knowledge society. Science Studies10 (2): 35-49.
48.
Jacob, M., and T. Hellström. 2000. The future of knowledge production into higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
49.
Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, and S. P. Borgatti. 1997. A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review22 (4): 911-945.
50.
Kivinen, O., and J. Varelius2003. The emerging field of biotechnology: The case of Finland. Science, Technology, and Human Values28 (1): 141-161.
51.
Kostoff, R. N.1997. Handbook of research impact assessment. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/handweb7index.htm (accessed June 20, 2001).
52.
Latour, B.1999a. “Do you believe in reality?” News from the trenches from the science war. In Pandoras hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
53.
Latour, B.1999b. When things strike back: A possible contribution of science studies. British Journal of Sociology51 (1): 105-123.
54.
Leydesdorff, L.2001. A sociological theory of communications: The self-organization of the knowledge-based society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers.
55.
Luukkonen, T.1995. The impact of research fields evaluations on research practice. Research Policy24349-365.
56.
Lubcke, P., ed. 1987. Vår tids filosofi [Philosophy of our times]. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Forum AB.
57.
Martin, B. R., A. Salter, D. Hicks, K. Pavitt, J. Senker, M. Shadep, and N. von Tunzelmann. 1996. The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance: A SPRU review. Report prepared for HM Treasury, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
58.
Merton, R. K.1957. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
59.
Merton, R. K.1973. “Recognition” and “excellence”: Instructive ambiguities. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. N. Storer, 419-459. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
60.
Miller, C.2001. Hybrid management: Boundary organisations, science policy and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, and Human Values26 (4): 478-500.
61.
National Agency for Higher Education. 2003. http://www.hsv.se/sv (accessed September 15, 2003).
62.
Nieminen, M. 2004. Academic research change: Transformation of Finnish university policies and university research during the 1990’s. PhD diss., University of Tampere.
63.
Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
64.
Nowotny, H.1999. The need for socially robust knowledge. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten8 (3/4): 12-16.
65.
Nowotny, H.2003. The potential of transdisciplinarity. http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5 (accessed March 22, 2004).
66.
Nowotny, H., M. Gibbons, and P. Scott. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
67.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1994. Main definitions and conventions for the measurement of research and experimental development (R&D). In A summary of the Frascati manual 1993. Paris: OECD.
68.
Patterson, G.1999. The learning university. The Learning Organizations6 (1): 9-17.
69.
Pelz, D. C., and F. Andrews. 1966. Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
70.
Pestre, D.1997. Science, political power and the state. In Science in the twentieth century, ed. J. Krige and D. Pestre, 61-75. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
71.
Pfeffer, J.1997. New directions for organisation theory: Problems and prospects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
Polanyi, Michael. [1946] 1998. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
73.
Popper, K. [1959] 1995. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
74.
Ravetz, J. R.1996. Quality control in science. In Scientific knowledge and its social problems, 273-288. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
75.
Rip, A.2001. Aggregation machines: A political science of science’s approach to the future of the peer review system. In Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis, ed. M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W. N. Dunn, and J. R. Ravetz, 391-413. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
76.
Rowley, J.2000. Is higher education ready for knowledge management?International Journal of Educational Management14:325-333.
77.
Scott, W. R.1981. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
78.
Shinn, T.1998. Crossing boundaries: The emergence of research-technology communities. In Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations, ed. H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, 85-105. London: Pinter.
79.
Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
80.
Stehr, N.1994. Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
81.
Strathern, M.2004. Commons and borderlands. Working papers on interdisciplinarity, accountability and the flow of knowledge. Oxon, UK: Sean Kingston Publishing.
82.
Stokes, D. E.1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
83.
Von Krogh, G., K. Ichijo, and I. Nonaka. 2000. Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
84.
Woolgar, S.1988. Science: The very idea. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited.
85.
Ziman, J.1994. Prometheus bound: Science in a steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86.
Ziman, J.2000. Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
