In this chapter, authors investigate the
changing role of university in Mode 2 condition. As elaborated in Gibbon and
Nowotny’s work (1994), in Mode 1 condition, “problems are set and solved in a
context governed by the, largely academic, interests of a specific community”,
where as Mode 2 is governed by heterogeneous groups, and more socially
accountable and reflexive. (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and
Trow, 1994) In this chapter, authors are making normative claims how future of
University should be. Main points are as follow.
1. Have we ever been in pure Mode
1?
“Under the
regime of Mode-1 science the universities exercised scientific hegemony through
their production of ‘pure’ research.” (p.80) However, author question that the
university’s dominant role is a recent phenomenon. Rather than holding the
prime role as a frontier of research, university have taken charge of seemingly
conflicting two roles, 1) reproduction of a cultivated elite (in other words,
role as an educational institution), and 2) development as a scientific
institution. In sum, according to authors, “it would be misleading to imagine
that the tensions between the social and scientific roles of the university are
new.”
2.
We have been in Mode 2, and this
trend has been accelerated
Consequently,
authors argue that we are in the age of Mode-2 regime. If we accept the Mode-2
knowledge production is taking place, the distinction between social system and
the knowledge system is not valid anymore. Indeed, scientific and social role
of the university is not, and should not be, a zero-sum game, but a compatible.
Furthermore, these two roles could be mutually sustainable in Mode-2. The
implications of Mode-2 are that 1) knowledge production is transcending the
disciplinary boundaries, 2) more actors are participating in knowledge production,
and 3) Knowledge Society is emerging. As a result, the boundary of role of
teaching and research in university is breaking down, because knowledgeable
people educated in university are actors of knowledge production in Mode-2
regime.
3.
What should university in
Mode-2 be?
In a word,
authors claim that “the future university will need to be more of a synergetic
institution”, in two senses which are 1) in terms of role of both teaching and
research, and 2) in terms of boundary between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of the
institution (de-institutionalization). Authors expect that the distinction or
boundary between teaching/research and inside/outside of university will not
vital anymore. As a conclusion, authors suggest that Mode-2 university will
have to be both adaptable and resilient, so that “elite university cannot
abandon the wider social responsibilities it has acquired, and mass
institutions cannot be discounted as research-producing institutions.”
No comments:
Post a Comment