Higher Education

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 275–298 | Cite as

Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university

  • Juha Tuunainen


This article reflects on current debate over transformations of scientific research and universities. Four well-known mutation theories (Mode-2 knowledge production, triple helix of university–industry–government relations, academic capitalism and enterprise university), and their recent critiques, are reviewed. It is suggested that a better understanding of the changes can be achieved by drawing analytic insight from research that speaks about scientific practices. Advantages that may be so attained are illustrated through a case study of a plant-biotechnology research group that pursued to straddle the fuzzy university-business boundary. On such grounds, three arguments that pertain to the mutation theories are put forward: (1) the need to appreciate the dynamics between theoretical, experimental and applied dimensions of research work; (2) the fact that external research funding intermingles with the complex social ecology of disciplines at the departmental level of universities; (3) the difficulties academics encounter as they try to fuse their university activities with private commercial development.


transformation scientific research universities hybrid practices. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck, U. 1992Risk Society: Towards a New ModernitySageLondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, D. 1973The Coming of Post-Industrial SocietyHeinemannLondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K.S., Wise, D. 1986‘Industrial support of university research in biotechnology’Science231242246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Seashore Louis, K., Stoto, M.A., Wise, D. 1986‘University – industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university’Science23213611366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Busch, L., Lacy, W.B., Burkhardt, J., Lacy, L.R. 1991Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic and Ethical Consequences of the New BiotechnologiesBlackwell PublishersCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, B.R. 1998Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of TransformationIAU Press and PergamonOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, A.E.Fujimura, J.H. eds. 1992The Right Tools for the Job At Work in Twentieth-Century Life SciencesPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry, J., Kenney, M. 1990‘Land-grant university–industry relationships in biotechnology: A comparison with the non-land-grant research universities’Rural Sociology554457Google Scholar
  9. Deem R., Johnson R., (2003). ‘Risking the university? Learning to be a manager-academic in UK universities’, Sociological Research Online 8(3). Available online at: <>Google Scholar
  10. Elzinga A., (2002). ‘The New Production of Reductionism in Models Relating to Research Policy’. Paper to the Nobel Symposium, Science and Industry in the 20th Century, Stockholm, 21–23 November, 2002 at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Etzkowitz, H. 1998‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university – industry linkages’Research Policy27823833Google Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. 2002‘Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university – industry – government networks’Science and Public Policy29115128Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H. 2003‘Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations’Social Science Information42293337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H. 2003‘Research groups as “Quasi-firms”: The invention of the entrepreneurial university’Research Policy32109121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. 2000‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’Research Policy29109123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., Schuler, J., Eugene, , Gulbrandsen, M. 2000a‘The evolution of the entrepreneurial university’Jacob, M.Hellström, T. eds. The Future of Knowledge Production in the AcademyThe Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University PressBuckingham4060Google Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Cantisano Terra, B.R. 2000b‘The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’Research Policy29313330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujimura, J.H. 1996Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of CancerHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Geiger, R.L. 1988‘Milking the sacred cow: Research and the quest for useful knowledge in the American University since 1920’Science, Technology, and Human Values13332348Google Scholar
  20. Gibbons, M. 2000‘Mode 2 society and the emergence of context sensitive science’Science and Public Policy27159163Google Scholar
  21. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. 1994The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary SocietiesSageLondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. 1990The Consequences of ModernityPolity PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gieryn, T.F. 1999Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the LineThe University of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Godin, B. 1998‘Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis?’, Social Studies of Science28465483Google Scholar
  25. Gottweis, H. 1998Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United StatesThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M. 1999‘The university under the pressure of innovation policy – reflecting on European and Finnish experiences’Science Studies124469Google Scholar
  27. Jansen, J.D. 2002‘Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African University’Higher Education43507521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kekäle, J. 1997Leadership Cultures in Academic DepartmentsThe University of JoensuuJoensuuGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenney, M. 1986Biotechnology: The University - Industrial ComplexYale University PressNew HavenGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimmelman, B.A. 1992‘Organisms and interests in scientific research: R. A. Emerson’s claims for the unique contributions of agricultural genetics’Clarke, A.E.Fujimura, J.H. eds. The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences.Princeton University PressPrinceton198232Google Scholar
  31. Kleinman, D.L. 2003Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of CommerceThe University of Wisconsin PressMadisonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleinman, D.L., Vallas, S.P. 2001‘Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “Knowledge Worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States’Theory and Society30451492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knorr Cetina, K. 1982‘Scientific communities or transepistemic Arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science’Social Studies of Science12101130Google Scholar
  34. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make KnowledgeHarvard University PressCambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraak, A. eds. 2000Changing Modes: New Knowledge Production and its Implications for Higher Education in South AfricaHuman Sciences Research CouncilPretoriaGoogle Scholar
  36. Kraak, A. 2000‘Investigating new knowledge production: A South African higher education survey’Kraak, A. eds. Changing Modes: New Knowledge Production and its Implications for Higher Education in South AfricaHuman Sciences Research CouncilPretoria128155Google Scholar
  37. Krimsky, S., Ennis, J.G., Weissman, R. 1991‘Academic - corporate ties in biotechnology: A quantitative study’Science, Technology, and Human Values16275287Google Scholar
  38. Krohn, W., Daele, W. 1998‘Science as an agent of change: Finalization and experimental implementation’Social Science Information37191222Google Scholar
  39. Krücken, G. 2002‘Panta Rei – Re-thinking science, re-thinking society’Science as Culture11125130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krücken, G. 2003‘Learning the “New, New Thing”: On the role of path dependency in university structures’Higher Education46315339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lacey, H. 2000‘Seeds and the knowledge they embody’Peace Review12563569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laiho, M., Lappalainen, M., Saxén, L. 1996Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Research in FinlandThe Academy of FinlandTampereGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenoir, T. 1997Instituting ScienceThe Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines. Stanford University PressStanfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Leydesdorff, L. 1996‘Luhmann’s sociological theory: Its operationalization and future perspectives’Social Science Information35283306Google Scholar
  45. Leydesdorff, L. 2000‘The Triple Helix: An evolutionary model of innovations’Research Policy29243255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marginson, S., Considine, M. 2000The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in AustraliaCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Miettinen, R. 1998‘Object construction and networks in research work: The case of research on cellulose-degrading enzymes’Social Studies of Science28423463Google Scholar
  48. Miettinen, R. 2002National Innovation System: Scientific Concept or Political RhetoricEditaHelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  49. Muller, J. 2000‘What knowledge is of the most worth for the Millennial citizen?’Kraak, A. eds. Changing Modes: New Knowledge Production and Its Implications for Higher Education in South AfricaHuman Sciences Research CouncilPretoria7087Google Scholar
  50. Noro, A. 2000‘Aikalaisdiagnoosi sosiologisen teorian kolmantena lajityyppinä’Sosiologia37321329Google Scholar
  51. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. 2001Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of UncertaintyPolity PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  52. Packer, K., Webster, A. 1996‘Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility’Science, Technology, and Human Values21427453Google Scholar
  53. Pickering, A. eds. 1992Science as Practice and CultureThe University of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  54. Rappert, B., Webster, A. 1997‘Regimes of ordering: The commercialization of intellectual property rights in industrial – Academic Collaborations’Technology Analysis and Strategic Management9115130Google Scholar
  55. Rheinberger, H.-J. 1997Toward History of Epistemic Things. Synthesizing Proteins in the Test TubeStanford University PressStanfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Rip, A. 2000‘Fashions, Lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowledge production’Jacob, M.Hellström, T. eds. The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy.The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University PressBuckingham2839Google Scholar
  57. Rosset, P.M., Altieri, M.A. 1997‘Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture’Society and Natural Resources10283295Google Scholar
  58. Shinn, T. 1999‘Change or Mutation? Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science’Social Science Information38149176Google Scholar
  59. Shinn, T. 2002‘The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology’Social Studies of Science32599614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slaughter, S., Leslie, L.L. 1997Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial UniversityThe Johns Hopkins University PressBaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  61. Subotzky, G. 1999‘Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs’Higher Education38401440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuunainen, J. 2001‘Constructing objects and transforming experimental systems’Perspectives on Science978105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuunainen, J. 2002‘Reconsidering the mode 2 and triple helix: A critical comment based on a case study’Science Studies153658Google Scholar
  64. Tuunainen J., (2005). ‘When disciplinary worlds collide: The organizational ecology of disciplines in a university department’, Symbolic Interaction, 28(2).Google Scholar
  65. Tuunainen J., (in press). ‘Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional University’. Social Studies of Science.Google Scholar
  66. Webster, A.J. 1994‘University – corporate ties and the construction of research Agendas’, Sociology28123142Google Scholar
  67. Weingart, P. 1997‘From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles?’Social Science Information36591613Google Scholar
  68. Ylijoki, O.-H. 2003‘Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideas and practices of university research’Higher Education45307335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ziman, J. 2000‘Postacademic science: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms’Segerstråhle, U. eds. Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse About Science and SocietyState University of New York PressAlbany135154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work ResearchUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations