"Science moves into the agora" Nowotny et al 2001

[Edit: June summarized the first chapter of this same book. Which has a good definition of Mode-2 science.]

Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons chapter on the agora is a great analysis based on a flawed observation. First the good bits. The authors list three aspects of Mode-2 societies that create and reinforce the trends they outline with regards to the agora:

1. Individualization: modern society stresses the rights and responsibilities of people over communities; and likewise science has begun to emphasize agency over structure. (They even take a dig at Giddens' structuration theory [1984].)
2. Subjectivity: society and science are now valuing subjective perceptions, opinions, and assessments more. Their example is a doctor's mortality rate being replace by a patient's subjective assessment of how well the doctor is doing their job.
3. Contextualization: their example is drawn from the "customization" efforts in industry to match products to people and settings that need/want them.

That is all background to say that the agora probably isn't going to disappear overnight because it is complimentary to these broader historical changes going on in western societies. So what is the agora?

...the new public space where science and society, the market and politics, co-mingle... a space that transcends the categorization of modernity (p 203)

The examples offered on 204-9 (grant writing, large state universities, research into Chernobyl fallout and GMO plants) are used to show that we could understand the complexities of modern day science within four main constraints:

1. democratic debate,
2. global markets,
3. policy and law,
4. public opinion and media

However, it would be better if we understood modern science as part of an agora where these four aspects are interconnected and constantly shifting.

They have two big conclusions based on this analysis. First, they claim that scientists are feeling threatened right now and that the scientific community may inaccurately blame one of the four constraints. In reality, it is the process of science becoming part of the agora -- a process they call contextualization -- which is the true threat to scientists: "Science and scientists have not been used to the context speaking back... (pg 207)."

The authors' second conclusion is that the agora (will? may? shall?) force scientists to become "intimate and interactive" with publics that they have ignored in the past; this interaction may lead to a point where scientists are anticipating these new publics at early stages in their research (pg 209). When scientists are anticipating the needs and wants of publics, who exactly are the scientists imagining? That's an interesting question that can only be posed by thinking about science, not as caught among constraints, but as embedded in the agora.

Like I said, this is a good analysis and I think the concept of the agora gives us a useful framework for understanding some of the current events around science, commerce, policy, and democracy. However, the constant reliance on the red herring of the "glory days" of post-WWII science is just poor scholarship. As they note on 206, "Of course, it is ahistorical to argue that the relationship between science and its social and political interlocutors was ever unproblematic; ..." BUT THEN THEY GO ON TO ARGUE EXACTLY THAT.

They set up a false distinction between modern science which has been drug into the agora and post-WWII science which was apparently objective, uncontroversial, and given its due respect. They have a few hand waving references to Galileo and Plato to suggest that maybe, way way way back then, science was in the agora, but surely all us learned people would agree that in 1955 those physicists were living the dream and got to unilaterally proclaim truth with an unlimited budget and didn't even have to wrestle with ethical qualms before smoking their customary pipe at the end of the day.....

The counter example that comes to my mind is the "clean living" movement depicted in the movie The Road to Wellville, which was a curious -- and highly contested -- mix of medical science, pseudo-science, snake oil salesman, Progressive Era politics and puritanical ethics. Surely an agora if there ever was one; the clean living movement flourished from 1890-1910. Maybe Nowotny et al wouldn't call that "modern," but it is certainly a lot closer than their examples of Galileo and Plato. By actively erasing examples of contested science from the 20th century, the authors are giving us false confidence in the distinction between the post-WWII glory days of science and the present day.

Like I said, there is a huge flaw in their evidence, but the analysis they build around the idea of the agora is quite useful nonetheless.

Do you agree with me about the flaw in the evidence?

Are there other examples of agora-like phenomenon in the post-WWII era?

Summary: Bucchi & Neresini (2008), "Science and Public Participation"

“Science and Public Participation” begins by defining public participation as “the diversified set of situations and activities, more or less spontaneous, organized and structured, whereby nonexperts become involved, and provide their own input to, agenda setting, decision making, policy forming, and knowledge production processes regarding science” (p. 449).

This chapter seeks to accomplish three things each of which will be the headings for this summary.

Overview of the emergence of the phenomenon and theme of public participation in science

Understanding public participation in science comes with a common view that the public lacks the ability to “understand and appreciate the achievements of science”. This model is referred to as the “deficit model” (p. 450). This model makes three assumptions: understanding science requires understanding science as it’s communicated by experts (scientific literacy), once the public has achieved this understanding they will begin to think favorably of science, and that in order to understand this relationship between the public and science, one only needs to understand the public’s role in this relationship.

The authors push back on this model by questioning the tools used to measure scientific literacy and the relationship between literacy and attitudes towards science. They believe to understand this phenomenon, one must use a more detailed analysis that examines the different kinds of knowledge used by experts and the public and the differences in values, trust, and perceptions held by both groups. A classic example of the differences between expert and lay knowledge can be found in Wynne’s 1986 study on British government experts and sheep farmers after the Chernobyl accident.

The authors then provide more examples of how nonexperts have been observed interacting with and co-producing scientific knowledge through hybrid forums. Some examples include the participation of AIDS patients in clinical trials, the creation of social movements and NGOs, the active participation and utilization of scientific research tools by the court system to address issues surrounding patents and scientific proof, the development and implementation of technologies, and using the Internet to share knowledge between patients and families. See Table 19.1 for more examples.

There have also been formal initiatives made by public institutions and NGOs to promote public participation in science. Some examples include the involvement in controversial science and technology issues like genetically modified foods and ozone depletion and making “citizen participation” a policy provision in research and innovation. Their reasons for promoting public participation is controversial. The sponsoring institutions often cite “enhanced citizenship and democratic participation” as reasons for promotion, while some claim that this promotion is to help prevent public controversies and to restore public trust in science.

Defining a general interpretative framework

The authors begin this section by describing some of the issues related to developing typologies to categorize and understand the similarities and difference between the different modes of public participation in science. They propose an interpretative framework that is “able to account for “spontaneous” participatory forms, i.e., those not deliberately elicited by a sponsor” like public protests, patient-shaped research, and community-based research (p. 461) and “the simultaneous coexistence of different patterns of participation depending on specific conditions and on the issues at stake” (p. 464). This framework adopts one of Callon’s (2001) dimensions—the “intensity” of cooperation among different actors in knowledge production processes and “access points” where nonexperts can intervene (p. 461). The variables are meant to be understood as a continuum. 

The authors note that over time public participation may move along the two dimensions (spontaneity and intensity) and that there is an “open-endedness” emphasized in this model—output of public participation is hard to predict (p. 463). The authors then give suggestions for integrating this interpretative framework including  avoiding certain temptations like using broad labels like “nonexperts” or “lay public”, overemphasizing the most intense forms of participation, and using the different analytical models as a chronological sequence of stages. The authors hope to change the question about public participation in science from “’which model of participation accounts best’ for expert-public interactions to ‘under what conditions do different forms of public participation emerge?’” (p. 464).

Possible driving forces and potential impact on the production of scientific knowledge

In the authors’ concluding remarks, they examine what conditions may have increased the call for public participation including the role of mass media in questioning policy decisions and the neutrality of science, the mobilization of researchers to protest budget cuts and state regulation in certain fields, and disasters like nuclear accidents that result in the expert community participating with the public.

Bucchi and Neresini  also suggest that public participation will not result in the disappearance of experts. The authors include reasons like the lack of public participation in scientific fields like theoretical physics and how policy makers and representatives of the scientific community use the public’s involvement to help prevent uncontrolled mobilization.

Questions
1. How does the phenomenon of "citizen scientists" fit into this analysis? In what ways do scientists and the field of science benefit from citizen scientists?
2. What are other ways in which the field of science prevents "nonexperts" from becoming "experts"? (publication process, education requirements?)

About the Authors

Massimiano Bucchi is an Italian sociologist and scholar of the relationships among science, technology, and society. He is an associate professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Trento. Federico Neresini teaches Science, Technology, and Society and Sociology of Innovation at the University of Padua, Italy. 

Analytical Summary: Moore's "Powered by the People"

In her piece "Powered by the People: Scientific Authority in Participatory Science,"Moore develops three analytical "heuristics" to complicate and explore the concept of participatory science. As participatory science becomes more the norm, Moore seeks to identify the complicated forms that concept takes. Moreover, these various forms reflect on, as well as impact, our understanding of scientific authority and power.

Moore defines authority as "the ability to command power and influence" (p. 300), and identifies the sources of scientific authority as rooted in:

• "the idea that science ultimately benefits all people ('progress')" 
• "competence in science requires years of specialized training" 
• "it is a unified social activity based on common methodological and theoretical bases" 
• "scientific knowledge is, after vetting by scientists over time, ultimately objective, independent of political, moral, and social influences" 

Participatory research, she points out, disrupts each of these roles of science. Cultural shifts challenged all forms of authority, including scientific, and legislative changes mandated the inclusion of affected parties in research, especially environmental research. But Moore's point is that not all participatory research has the same effect. Each of her three forms of participatory research - activists, professionals, and amateurs - looks at the driving motivator behind the research and how this specifically complicates scientific and moral authority. 

Activist-initiated research "[puts] front and center the ways in which social structural relationships provide some groups with more benefits from science than others" (p. 307). The addition of new possibilities for evidence challenges science's "monopoly" on knowledge production. The way scientists try to term these activists, however, reveals the tensions. 

Professional-initiated participatory research is often found in university-local group collaborations. However, often in this form of research, questions over power relationships emerge with questions of authority and access. Ultimately, she points out, "the participation of nonscientists raises an important question: why isn't all science engaged with nonscientist stakeholders?" (p. 310). 

Amateurs take two forms in her analysis: marginal amateur and vocational amateur. Using creationists as her example, Moore identifies the marginal as those who use particular tools from science to defend a particular viewpoint that might not be accepted within the mainstream scientific community. They bring into question the idea of science as "a coherent whole" (p. 316). Vocational scientists, on the other hand, are regular contributors often through data collection and/or labor support, and challenge the concepts of a necessary specialized training and objectivity as a norm (as most vocational scientists are rather passionate fans). 

The different roles that Moore has identified do, in fact, seem to provide useful ways to wrap our minds around the different ways science and the public are talked about, though their application to situations must also be limited. As Moore points out in her conclusion, "Ideal types can draw attention to analytical points, but they cannot do justice to the complexity of participatory science in practice" (p. 317). Still, more examples for each of these ideal types would help flush out the nuance within each of these archetypes she describes and, perhaps, further push our understanding of the boundaries of science. Moreover, in each example she seems to find a successful example without necessarily demonstrating what happens in an unsuccessful example. 

These analytical tools are also questionable in terms of structural versus particular, context dependent situations. In each of these situations, it seems like numerous factors, especially the personalities involved, will play important roles into how their message is accepted. Moore gets at this, in a veiled way, through her discussion of power dynamics and resources of participants. Even more, as we discussed earlier with interdisciplinary programs, "stars" and "connectors" (Rhoten 2004) are important factors to understanding success of particular programs. This may carry over into individualized scenarios. 

This isn't to discount Moore's larger argument about its impact on science. Rather, looking in more details at each unique situation might give us a more nuanced perspective on how non-science participants understood their role or how their roles changed and complicated over time (as Epstein (1996) found). This makes for a perhaps richer understanding of how scientific authority is a dynamic process involving numerous actors. 

Questions
1. How do we think of scientific authority today? Do we have a more porous boundary between scientists and the "public" today?
2. Do we have a vocabulary that could make possible total radical changes to scientific authority?
3. What might be lost in the challenges to scientific authority? Is it always a positive?
4. Is science different from other forms of knowledge construction? For instance, do social scientists or lawyers exert the same authority as scientists? Why or why not? How have their relationships been challenged over time?
5. How does this article complicate our understanding of Mode 2 science and/or academic capitalism?

Author Background
Dr. Kelly Moore is an Associate Professor in the School of Sociology at Loyola University Chicago. She received her B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. from University of Arizona. Her research centers on science, technology, and moral systems, exploring issues of themes of inequality.

WARF's role in patenting and licensing and activities in between

Below is a link to a discussion/ talk about WARF for those of you who might be interested. (It is hosted by UW OHR, but I imagine anyone with a NetID may register.)

https://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/OHRDCatalogPortal/Default.aspx?CK=44181

Notes from Class Research Paper Workshop

Below are just a few notes I took on general suggestions for our research projects during the workshop we had in class on Friday.

~~~~

• Data reduction (Daniel's term) = making sense of the mass of data you've collected; finding the significance of it given preexisting realities of the world.
• Think about the unit of analysis.
• Think about what priorities and/or values might be revealed by or driving your research.
• Follow your sources! Go beyond just determining context and see where they lead you.
• Explicitly lay out the goals and the limitations of your study.
• If you feel like the project is getting too big to come to a conclusion within the page limit, think about how its relevancy in terms of the class concepts we've learned about/ how they inform your topic.

Project Proposal: Scientists as Science Writers

 

As Web 2.0 has emerged, boundaries between media audiences, professionals and sources have blurred. Web 2.0 introduced digital media platforms featuring user-generated content, such as blogs, YouTube, Twitter and podcasts, allowing anyone with Internet access to become a media content provider. These digital platforms have raised questions about how relationships between scientists and the general public may be shifting in response to this new communications landscape. Digital platforms have diminished the role of journalists as gatekeepers, allowing scientists and audiences to communicate directly with one another, and prompting science communications scholars to reorient their focus. As science communications scholar Dominique Brossard insisted in a recent article, “we need to stop talking about the future of science journalism to talk about the present reality of science communication” (Brossard 2013).

Impure Culture, Chapter 1

Purposes of the chapter are 1) to clarify author’s main research question, 2) to introduce author’s methodology for answering the question, 3) to introduce the research subject and 4) to convince the readers that chosen subject and methodology are promising to answer the author’s research question.

In terms of research question, Kleinman clearly declares that his interest is “in the ways that what might broadly be termed the world of commerce shapes the everyday practice of academic laboratory science.” (p. 4) More specifically, author clarifies what are examined and claimed in this book. Kleinman claims that 1) researches on university-industry relations (UIRs) have neglected the pervasive, but indirect influence of commercial world on laboratory practice, and 2) analysis on the agency of laboratory life not sufficient to grasp the actual practice of laboratory, and thus analysis of structure of the laboratory is useful.

           For the purpose of claiming such arguments, author chose to investigate the lab as a participatory observer. It is clearly notified that Kleinman conducted a full-time ethnographic research for six months on spring of 1995, and followed by part-time observation even after the six month intensive research period. Author also explicitly emphasizes that he tried to be a part of lab culture by wearing like them, learning several lab techniques, and talking with them. By learning PCR and electrophoresis technique, Kleinman was able to approach to lab members, and being introduced into the lab ritual, such as Thursday afternoon Chinese take-out.

           However, as an ethnographer, author confesses that there were several conflicts during and after the research. For instance, Jo Handelsman criticized that Kleinman was “misunderstood by collegues”, and also “attention to intellectual property issues might make the lab seems greedy.” (p.25) To clarify that the purpose of ethnographic research was not to blame individual member or single lab, author introduces C. Wright Mills’ emphasis on structural factors. In other words, it is emphasized that the analysis on this book is on structural representation, which is beyond the control of any individuals.

           Thirdly, what is Handelsman laboratory? Author’s detailed illustration of Handelsman’s laboratory is inseparable from the intention to justify that his methodology and subject is thoroughly well designed to answer his own research question. Professor Handelsman was in the Department of Plant Pathology in the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s CALS, and focusing on UW85, which could be used to prevent damping off and root rot of plants. Laboratory has several different kinds of meetings such as weekly lab meeting, journal club, and departmental seminars. Kleinman observed that lab budget management was the central issue of Handelsman’s laboratory, even though she highly committed to academic scholarship and education. She worried that “if the research does not progress, if the experiments do not succeed, if the publications and patents do not continue, neither will be finding.”

           Description of Handelsman’s lab directly goes to the final issue, which is to convince the readers why Kleinman’s ethnographic work on Handelsman’s lab is a promising project. Author argues that “I came to realize that the kinds of direct and ad hoc effects that influence university science only tell part of the story.” Handelsman’s laboratory was not place of compromising the scientific integrity by monetary concern, even though it was “structurally” exposed to the world of commerce. Thus, Kleinman soundly insists that if Handelsman’s lab is affected by the world of commerce, it could be an evidence that the subtle influence of industrial culture is pervasive and influential in university biology overall.

Questions)

1.     Is it always best choice to emotionally strongly attach to subject of ethnographic research? How participatory researchers could balance between ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’?

2.     Author confesses that his initial assumption was partly changed during his research. In this sense, how much tentative argument or conclusion should we set at the beginning stage of the research? How can we utilize the serendipitous moment of research to articulate or reconfigure out initial assumption?

3.     What are advantages of ethnographic research? What could be possible alternative methodology of this book?

4. What are the most important roles of introduction chapter?

Katri Huutoniemi, "Evaluating interdisciplinary research"

There is little knowledge or consensus on how to evaluate interdisciplinary research, which does not seem to fit in well with the current system for producing scientific knowledge. The chapter by Katri Huutoniemi analyzes the key characteristics and challenges of interdisciplinary assessment by drawing insights from the conceptual and pragmatic discussions of interdisciplinary research, empirical analyses of evaluation activities, and initiatives and experiences of participating organizations. It introduces the central challenges involved in evaluating interdisciplinary research and focuses attention not on the criteria used to conduct interdisciplinary research, but on the perspectives used to evaluate it, and highlights the consequential role of both concepts and practices in defining merit: First, it shows how different conceptualizations of interdisciplinarity shape assumptions about quality; and second, it discusses how values are actively constructed by the people and practices involved. 

At the beginning of the chapter she defined a interdisciplinary as "a genus of integrative research activities that combine more than one discipline, field, or body of knowledge" and differentiate from the term transdiciplinary which refers to "trans-sector problem solving where various stakeholders in society are actively involved in knowledge production." 

Although interdisciplinary research is not easily amenable to evaluation, she valued the key functions of interdisciplinary research evaluation, which can be summarized as follows: 

• needed for organizational learning and improvement of performance and quality of research activities
• to bolster the credibility of research; it helps to legitimate research and its results
• accountability and transparency in the use of public funds
• not only for separating the qualified from the unqualified, but also for distinguishing between competing types of high-quality research 

Next, the author distinguished between three evaluative approaches to interdisciplinary research that "highlights some key features of interdisciplinary as a special type of challenge for research evaluation": (1) mastering multiple disciplines, (2) emphasizing integration and synergy, and (3) critiquing disciplinarity. 

(1) mastering multiple disciplines 

• baseline for assessment: disciplinary originality or excellence
• good interdisciplinary research must fulfill existing methodological requirements and theoretical standards
• greater challenge for interdisciplinary scholars, because it's hard to be met expert and generalist criteria at the same time
• reception problems, incompatibility of different disciplinary standards

(2) emphasizing integration and synergy

• baseline for assessment: create a new model of excellence
• need to combine knowledge resources in order to develop an integrated product
• proponents of the view: within boundary-crossing organization, consultants, or practitioners

(3) critiquing disciplinarily

• views disciplinarily and interdisciplinary as strongly opposed: interdisciplinary as the force that diverts the discipline-driven direction of knowledge production
• undermine the prevailing status of disciplinary standards in the pursuit of a non-disciplinary, integrated knowledge system
• difficulties of evaluating interdisciplinary research will not be overcome by creating new quality standards for that type of research, but by transforming the prevailing ethnocentrism and mutual ignorance between disciplines
• quality judgment should be made by using external criteria but no recipe for how to do it

This framework helps to identify the relevant epistemic stakeholders, the functions and benefits of proposed research, as well as the methodological procedures for accomplishing the stated goals, which constitute the prerequisite for any evaluative act. It argues that these competing positions on interdisciplinarity shape assumptions about quality and how it should be evaluated, while the actual process of evaluation with various social, cognitive, and pragmatic aspects also plays an important role in quality judgments. 

Project Proposal - To Academia and Beyond: How Anthropology Markets to Undergraduates

According to the American Anthropological Association (AAA), “anthropologists can be found in a surprising array of fields and careers.”[1] An anthropology major is increasingly marketed as a “hot asset”[2] for a variety of career paths beyond the tenure and research track. In fact, the prospective careers for anthropology majors suggested by the AAA include more non-academic jobs than traditional anthropological positions. As the academic job market becomes increasingly competitive, it is possible that certain fields with less obvious non-academic applications must in turn increasingly justify their position to both the general public and student consumers. This type of justification marketing may be especially important for social scientific disciplines, especially given recent trends in government rhetoric and funding decisions.

This paper seeks to investigate how a variety of highly ranked anthropology programs are appealing to undergraduate students as a prospective major. This preliminary study will compile and analyze the publically available information from anthropology department websites to unveil both commonalities and variation in rhetoric and marketing strategy across campus types. In addition to collecting data from department specific websites, this research will seek to identify, if not analyze in detail, other sources of departmental marketing. These include the availability of physical marketing material for prospective anthropology majors, the existence of social media accounts for anthropology departments or departmental sections, and finally the occurrence of anthropological achievements discussed in institution news bulletins from the last academic year. Three institution types will be included in this research in order to more fully probe recent trends. These include public research universities, private research universities, and liberal arts colleges.

The following interrelated research questions will be investigated in detail:
1) How is the department structured?
2) How is the undergraduate major structured and presented?
3) How do department websites discuss post-graduate trajectories for majors?
4) How are undergraduate courses advertised in course descriptions?
5) Are common buzzwords invoked across departments?
6) What marketable skills are promised by departments?

Through an exploration of these various questions, this preliminary study will allow for the development of specific hypotheses and expectations that can in turn be tested at other institutions and potentially in other social scientific departments.

---

[1] http://www.aaanet.org/profdev/careers/

[2] Jones, Del. February 18, 1999. “Hot Asset in Corporate: Anthropology Degrees.” USA Today

Proposal: Taming the Wild for Market

Taming the Wild for Market: Scientific Agriculture of Wild Rice, 1959~1985

June Jeon

            Wild rice (Zizania aquatic and Zizania Palustrus) has been widely harvested in North America, especially by Ojibwa and Chippewa tribes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wild rice is grown in lake, so Native Indians have harvested wild rice manually on the canoe. Since the late 1950s, trials for systematic commercialization of wild rice resulted in adaptation of breeding technology to improve the productivity of wild rice. Erwin R. Brook, professor at the Institute of Agriculture of University of Minnesota, argued that “unimproved wild rice” should be improved as a commercial crop by making it to be planted in paddies rather than in lake. Moreover, he insisted that systematic development of the processing of wild rice is essential for the commercialization to enhance the yield efficiency of the production. [1] Simultaneously, University of Minnesota agronomist, Algot Johnson discovered several new types of wild rice, which was non-scattering and paddy-grown type, with breeding trials, and initiated the breeding research of wild rice. In 1972, University of Minnesota began the wild rice breeding program, and opened the Minnesota Paddy Wild Rice Research and Promotion Council.[2] University of Minnesota was not the only research institute, which was interested in wild rice research. University of Wisconsin’s Department of Food Science and Agronomy began the research for the scientific agriculture of wild rice partly supported by the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission and Chief Industries, Inc., Hayward, Wisconsin in 1968. The research report was published as a ‘handbook’ for wild rice processors, with detailed experimental data on fermentation, parching, drying, hulling, and winnowing process of wild rice.[3]

            The prime motivation for researches was the market value of wild rice. University of Wisconsin’s research team wrote “even the most conservative estimates point to a bright future for the wild rice industry. (…) The high price for rice presently makes it a luxury food item for many customers.”[4] As a result of systematic development of wild rice, cultivated wild rice dominated the market, and the market share of uncultivated lake-grown wild rice began to be decreased drastically.

Figure 1. Wild Rice Production, 1968-1984[5]

            
      As total production was increased, the price per pound was exacerbated. From 1968 to 1984, total production of wild rice was increased from 0.69 million pounds to 6.69 million pounds, whereas wholesale price per pound was only slightly changed from $ 3.27 to $ 3.30. In sum, mass production and mass consumption mechanism of wild rice was enabled by food and agricultural scientists from universities, and was resulted in an asymmetric distribution of the benefit – huge advantage for large-scale farmers and food industry with ‘tamed’ wild rice, compare to relative alienation of Native Indian’s lake-grown wild rice from the market.

            This research is a historical case study of scientific research of wild rice agriculture by two universities – University of Wisconsin and University of Minnesota. These two universities share the similarity in a sense that both were founded as a land-granted university to serve state residents. Considering the fact that majority of economic structure of both states have been relied on agriculture and dairy products, the case of wild rice research by these two universities highlights their role as a public university.

            By shedding light on the wild rice story, this research attempts to widen the current discussion on Mode 2 knowledge. According to Gibbon et al, “Mode 2 knowledge is created in broader, transcisciplinary social and economic contexts.”[6] In other words, from the beginning, knowledge production in Mode 2 regime is responsible for the needs of various social actors, so that shapes the knowledge by diverse intellectual and social demands. In words of Hessels and Lente, Mode 2 knowledge has the characteristics of heterogeneity, reflexivity, and social accountability, whereas traditional Mode 1 regime is categorized by homogeneity and autonomy.[7]

            Even though Mode 2 framework captures the important aspect of modern research system, many scholars have criticized that such framework lacks the empirical evidence. (detail references) Thus, Mode 2 framework is better to be understood as a general prediction on tendency rather than normative framework about the past and future of university.

            Indeed, constructive question is “how much knowledge production system has been heterogeneous, reflexive, and socially accountable?” rather than asking whether the Mode 2 framework is empirically warranted or not. Multiple components of Mode 2 theory should be used as meaningful perspectives to analyze the knowledge production system, not merely to falsify the framework per se. In this context, this research aims to shed light on an asymmetric power structure that initiates and utilizes the research program. What is lacking in Mode 2 framework is the micro level analysis on how the specific research agenda is shaped under which context of various actors with asymmetric interests and powers, and the implications of possible consequences of it.

            I will argue that even the needs for research program is not always inherent in university scholars in Mode 2 framework, the specific structure of needs by the various actors represents the actual power asymmetry among the different social entities, such as farmers, manufacturers, industries, and local minorities. Moreover, not only the motivation of the research, but also the utilization of the knowledge is in line with uneven power structure, which results in asymmetric distribution of outcomes.

Brief contents:

1.     Minnesota Paddy Wild Rice Research and Promotion Council and development of paddy-grown wild rice: Breeding technology and needs of food industry

2.     Standardization and quantification for wild ricers: processing wild rice for market

3.     Asymmetric consequences

4.     Conclusion

Note - Things to think: (puzzles)

1)    How to show the asymmetric structure of needs? How can I effectively reveal the story that strong needs of manufacturers overshadowed the needs of Native Indian community? How dynamically?

2)    Not intending to describe university as a research factory, which performs the D to P. How to avoid such trap?

3)    About science: Standardization and quantification – inherent characteristics of science, and its inevitably close relationship with market mechanism: how can I incorporate this story to urge the needs of inclusive meaning of knowledge?

-       Different kinds of scientific knowledge for Native Indian communities? (science for quality control and storage vs. science for large scale farming and manufacturing)

4)    Academic capitalism – asymmetric geography of power structure

5)    Consequence – How can I use the story of industry’s use of word ‘wild’ as rhetoric in my story?

6)    However, I am not trying to romanticize the Native Indian’s wild rice!

7)    Do I have to find the interaction between Minnesota and Wisconsin as well?

---

[1] Erwin R. Brooks, A Survey of the Current and Potential Wild Rice Production, Process, and Marketing on the White Earth, Nett Lake, and Red Lake Indian Reservations in Minnesota, and the Mole Lake and Bad River Indian Reservation in Wisconsin, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, Institute of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, 1964, p. 5~14

[2] Claude E. Titus, “Wild Rice: Delicious, Nutritious, Aquatic Grass”, The Minnesota Volunteer, September-October 1985, p. 13

[3] Wild Rice Processors’ Handbook, Department of Food Science and Agronomy, University of Wisconsin – Extension, 1972

[4] Ibid, p.90

[5] Ronald N. Nelson and Reynold P. Dahl, “Wild Rice Market Shows Vigorous Growth”, Minnesota Agricultural Economist, September 1985, p. 1

[6] Michael Gibbons et al, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994), p. 1

[7] Laurens K. Hessels and Harro van Lente, "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy 37 (2008), pp. 740-760