The notion of Mode 2, as a shift from Mode 1 science-as-we-know-it, depicts science as
practically relevant, socially distributed and democratic. Debates remain over the
empirical substantiation of Mode 2. In particular, our understanding has been impeded
by the mutually exclusive framing of Mode 1/Mode 2. Looking at how academic
science is justified to diverse institutional interests – a situation associated with Mode 2
– it is asked, “What happens to Mode 1 where Mode 2 is in demand?”
This study comprises two sequential phases. It combines interviews with 18 university
spinout founders as micro-level Mode 2 exemplars, and macro-level policy narratives
from 72 expert witnesses examined by select committees. An interpretive scheme
(Greenwood and Hinings, 1988) is applied to capture the internal means-ends structure
of each mode, where the end is to satisfy demand constituents, both in academia (Mode
1) and beyond (Mode 2).
Results indicate Mode 1’s enduring influence even where non-academic demands are
concerned, thus refuting that means and ends necessarily operate together as a stable
mode. The causal ambiguity inherent in scientific advances necessitates (i) Mode 1 peer
review as the only quality control regime systematically applicable ex ante, and (ii)
Mode 1 means of knowledge production as essential for the health and diversity of the
science base. Modifications to performance criteria are proposed to create a synergy
between modes and justify public investment, especially in the absence of immediate
outcomes.
The study presents a framework of Mode1/Mode 2 coexistence that eases the problem
with the either/or perception and renders Mode 2 more amenable to empirical research.
It is crucial to note, though, that this is contingent on given vested interests. In this
study, Mode 1’s fate is seen through academic scientists whose imperative is unique
from those of other constituents, thereby potentially entailing further struggles and
negotiation