How is quality control organized in the new “Mode-2” 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) to describe changes in the networks of scientific communications (funding patterns, research configurations, styles of knowledge management, etc.). These changes were specified mainly as institutional parameters in order to deal with the subjects of R&D management and S&T policies, that is, ex ante (Spiegel-Rösing, 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 the dynamics of communications enables us to clarify several problems in the discussion of the future of university research.
Basic Law on Administrative Reforms of Central Government of Agencies (1998) Law No. 103, article No. 43 (in Japanese).
2.
Callon, M. , Law, J. and Rip, A., eds (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan.
3.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) (1972) Interdisciplinarity. Paris: OECD.
4.
Crane, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L., eds (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Cassell Academic.
6.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”, Research Policy29(2): 109-123.
7.
Etzkowitz, H. , Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B. (2000) “The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm”, Research Policy29(2): 313-330.
8.
Franz, J.E. (1974) “Peer Review in Biomedical Publication”, American Journal of Medicine56: 686-692.
9.
Fujigaki, Y. (1996) “Theoretical Analysis on Interdisciplinary Collaboration as a Base of UnIG Collaboration: Knowledge-Based Analysis”, Proceedings of International Conference on Technology Management, pp. 206-211. Istanbul: Bogacizi University Press.
10.
Fujigaki, Y. (1997) “Theoretical Framework and Ongoing Observation of Knowledge Integration in Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Intervention Study on a Project Funded by a Japanese Ministry”, Proceedings of the PICMET: Portland International Conference in Management of Engineering and Technology (CD-Rom). Portland: Oregon.
11.
Fujigaki, Y. (1998) “Filling the Gap Between the Discussion on Science and Scientists' Everyday Activity: Applying the Autopoiesis System Theory to Scientific Knowledge”, Social Science Information37(1): 5-22.
12.
Fujigaki, Y. and Nagata, A. (1998) “Concept Evolution in Science and Technology Policy: The Process of Change in Relationship Among University, Industry and Government”, Science and Public Policy26(6): 387-395.
13.
Fuller, S. (1988) Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
14.
Fuller, S. (1999a) “Peer Review: On the Cyber Conference on Peer Review on Social Sciences”, cyber conference on the Internet, May-June.
15.
Fuller, S. (1999b) Preface, in Science, Japanese edn.Tokyo: Iwanami. (Orig. published 1997 by Open University Press.)
16.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C., Nowotny, H.et al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
17.
Gieryn, T.F. (1994) “Boundaries of Science”, in S. Jasanoffet al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Godin, B. (1998) “Writing Performative History: Is this a New Atlantis?”, Social Studies of Science28(3): 465-483.
19.
Godin, B. and Gingras, Y. (2000) “The Place of Universities in the System of Knowledge Production”, Research Policy29(2): 273-278.
20.
Hayashi, T. and Fujigaki, Y. (1999) “Analysis of the Differences in the Knowledge Production between Disciplines from the Style of Paper and Citation”, Scientometrics46(1): 73-86.
21.
Haynes, R. B. (1990) “Loose Connection between Peer-reviewed Clinical Journals and Clinical Practice”, Annals of Internal Medicine113(9): 724-728.
22.
Hirasawa, R.Tomizawa, H. , Igichi, T.et al. (1998) “A Comparative Survey on Science and Technology Policy System and on Policy Formulation Processes”, report for the Science and Technology Agency: Special Co-ordinating Program.
23.
Horrobin, D.F. (1990) “The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation”, Journal of the American Medical Association263: 1438-1441.
24.
Japanese University Council (1998) A Vision for Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures: To be Distinctive Universities in a Competitive Environment. Tokyo: Government Document.
25.
Jasanoff, S. (1990) Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Kaghan, W. N. and Barnett, G. B. (1997) “The Desktop Model of Innovation,” in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 71-81. London: Cassell Academic.
27.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1982) “Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arena of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science”, Social Studies of Science12: 101-130.
28.
Kobayashi, T. and Wakamatsu, Y. (1998) Report on Consensus Conference on Gene Therapy. Tokyo: Committee on Public Engagement on Science and Technology (NPO) (in Japanese).
29.
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., eds (1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Law for Promoting Research Exchange [Kenkyu Kouryuu Ho] (1986) Law No. 57, May 20.
31.
Leydesdorff, L. (1994) “The Evolution of Communication Systems”, International Journal of Systems Research and Information Science6: 219-230.
32.
Leydesdorff, L. (1995) The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. Leiden: DSWO Press and Leiden University.
33.
Leydesdorff, L. (1997) “A New Communications Regime of University-Industry-Government Relations”, in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 106-117. London: Cassell Academic.
34.
Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “Are EU Networks Anticipatory Systems? An Empirical and Analytical Approach”, in D. M. Dubois (ed.) Computing Anticipatory Systems - CASYS '99. Woodbury, NY: American Physics Institute.
35.
Leydesdorff, L. and De Klerk, R. (1998) “An Innovating Introductory Course at the University of Amsterdam”, International Journal of Science Education20: 15-23.
36.
(Republished as Social Systems, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995.)
37.
Luhmann, N. (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
38.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988) “Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation”, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelsonet al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, pp. 349-369. London: Pinter.
39.
Maturana, H. (1978) “Biology of Language: The Epistemology of Reality”, in G.A. Miller and E. Lenneberg (eds) Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought. Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg, pp. 27-63. New York: Academic Press.
40.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
41.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
Nowotny, H. (1990) “Actor-Networks Versus Science as Self-Organizing System: A Comparative View of Two Constructivist Approaches”, Sociology of the Sciences14: 223-239.
43.
OECD (1977) Social Science Policy: Japan. Paris: OECD.
44.
Parker, E.N. (1997) “Strategy for Publishing Papers”, EOS (Newsletter of American Association of Geophysics)79(37): 391.
45.
Price, D.S. (1984) “The Science/Technology Relationship, The Craft of Experimental Science, and Policy for the Improvement of High Technology Innovation”, Research Policy13: 3-20.
46.
Rip, A. (1997) “A Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science”, Social Science Information36(4): 615-640.
47.
Rip, A. and Van der Meulen, B.J.R. (1996) “The Post Modern Research System”, Science and Public Policy23(6): 343-352.
48.
Science and Technology Council (Japan) (1966) 23rd Recommendation. Science and Technology Basic Plan.
49.
Shinn, T. (1997) “Crossing Boundaries: The Emergence of Research-Technology Communities”, in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 85-96. London: Cassell Academic.
50.
Shinn, T. (1998) “The Impact of Research and Education on Industry: A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship of Education and Research Systems to Industrial Progress in Six Countries”, Industry & Higher Education12(5): 270-289.
51.
Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
52.
Spiegel-Rösing, I. S. (1973) Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Wissenschaftssteuerung. Frankfurt a.M.: Athenäum Verlag.
53.
Tobias, S. , Chubin, D.E. and Aylesworth, K. (1995) Rethinking Science as a Career. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
54.
Tokyo Declaration on Work-Related Stress and Health in Three Post-Industrial Settings - EU, Japan, and USA (1998) Journal of Tokyo Medical University56(6): 760-767.
55.
Van den Daele, W. , Krohn, W. and Weingart, P. (1979) Geplante Forschung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
56.
Weingart, P. (1997) “From `Finalization' to `Mode 2': Old Wine in New Bottles?”, Social Science Information36(4): 591-613.
57.
Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and the Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
Yonemoto, S. (1998) Chisei-gaku no susume [Recommendation for Knowledge Policy]. Tokyo: Cyu-ou Kouron-Sya (in Japanese).
