Abstract
The author team of Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow (Gibbons et al., 1994) distinguishes between two different modes of knowledge production. “Mode 1” focuses on the traditional role of university research in an elderly “linear model of innovation” understanding. This reflects a basic university research, interested in “first/basic principles” and “discoveries,” with a disciplinary research structure, where quality is being controlled primarily by disciplinary peers or a disciplinary peer review process. These disciplinary peers exercise a strong quality gatekeeper function and represent also a university (higher education) system with powerful hierarchies, built into the institutions (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 1, 3, 24, 33–34, 43–44, 167). Success in Mode 1 (of Mode 1 university research) is defined as a quality or excellence that is approved by hierarchically established peers: “Success in Mode 1 might perhaps be summarily described as excellence by disciplinary peers” (Gibbons et al., 1994). Mode 1 is not concerned with the application, diffusion, and use of knowledge, and Mode 1 does not focus on features in relation to problem-solving for the society or the economy. Nonlinear innovation models are of no major concern for Mode 1.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The full names of the whole research team are Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow.
- 2.
On the concept of “co-opetition” (forms or network configurations of a simultaneous cooperation and competition), see Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1997).
- 3.
Modes of knowledge and innovation may be reinterpreted as “paradigms” or as being paradigm-based.
- 4.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn, retrieved: November 12, 2009), the concept of a “paradigm shift” being referred to Kuhn, however, was not literally created by Kuhn.
- 5.
At least one potential quality of print books will be to serve as a different backup medium (in paper) for the electronic e-books. University libraries again often are challenged of not exactly knowing where to store the masses of print publications in the long run.
- 6.
Current hybrid cars combine a combustion engine with an electric motor. Next-generation automobiles might be hybrid plug-in hydrogen cars that link an electric motor with a fuel cell. Such cars could either be externally charged directly with electricity or could convert, in the fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen to electricity (and heat) for the electric motor. Hydrogen cars powered by fuel cells emit only water (water vapor). If the electricity for the plug-in device or the hydrogen for the fuel cell generated in a clean way, this next-generation technology might contribute to a substantial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of the land-bound traffic and would help balancing the current effects of a global warming of the world climate. Several analysts believe that some of the Japanese and German car companies are (at least for the moment) the global leaders in hydrogen technology.
- 7.
Two key books of Eric von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (1988) and Democratizing Innovation (2005), are electronically available as a free download (http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books.htm). Print versions must be purchased. This illustrates how a print medium and an electronic medium of the same publication can be combined in an innovative, creative, and effective way and furthermore might indicate a promising hybrid strategy for publishers in the future.
- 8.
As an interesting example for a citizen audit on the quality of democracy, which was carried out in recent years, see Cullell (2004) on Costa Rica.
- 9.
The general website address of the “Democracy Ranking” is http://www.democracyranking.org/en
- 10.
See also: http://epi.yale.edu/Home
- 11.
For an analysis of the different dynamics in the biotechnology and ICT sectors in Finland, Christopher Palmberg and Terttu Luukkonen (2006, pp. 160–161, 167–169) apply the concept of the “competence block.” Here the “entrepreneur” is crucial. Palmberg and Luukkonen define the entrepreneur as: “Entrepreneurs, or innovators, who identify profitable inventions and introduce them in the market. The task of the entrepreneur is to identify those ideas that have the greatest potential commercial value and therefore to contribute to turning inventions into innovations in the market.”
References
Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2005). Education pays 2005 update. Washington, D.C.: College Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost05/education_pays_05.pdf
Baum, S., Payea, K., & Steele, P. (2006). Education pays 2006 second update. Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost06/education_pays_06.pdf
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1997). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna, Austria: Democracy Ranking. Retrieved from http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf
Campbell, D. F. J., & Barth, T. D. (2009). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau 49(2), 208–233. Retrieved from http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/campbell_u._barth-demokratiemessung-sws_rundschau-heft_2009_02-FINAL.pdf
Campbell, D. F. J., & Pölzlbauer, G. (2009). The democracy ranking 2008/2009 of the quality of democracy: Method and ranking outcome. Vienna, Austria: Democracy Ranking. Retrieved from http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/method_ranking_outcome_2008-09_A4.pdf
Campbell, D. F. J., & Miklós Sükösd (Eds.) (2002). Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Vienna, Austria: Global Democracy Award. Retrieved from http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf
Campbell, D. F. J. (2006). The university/business research networks in science and technology: Knowledge production trends in the United States, European Union and Japan. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 67–100). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Güttel, W. H. (2005). Knowledge production of firms: Research networks and the “scientification” of business R&D. International Journal of Technology Management, 31(1-2), 152–175.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2006). “Mode 3”: Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. (pp. 1–25). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Carayannis, E. G., & D. F. J. Campbell (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46(3-4), 201–234. Retrieved from http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91.
Cullell, J. V. (2004). Democracy and the quality of democracy. Empirical findings and methodological and theoretical issues drawn from the citizen audit of the quality of democracy in Costa Rica. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications (pp. 93–162). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The quality of democracy. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.
Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A. (2005). 2005 Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Retrieved from http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf
Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., Kim, C. H., de Sherbinin, A., Srebotnjak, T., & Mara, V. (2008). 2008 Environmental performance index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.yale.edu/epi/files/2008EPI_Text.pdf
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as “quasi-firms”: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.
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 Policy, 29, 109–123.
Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Freedom House. (2008). Methodology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=341&year=2008
Freedom House. (2009a). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Country ratings and status, FIW (freedom in the world) 1973-2009. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439
Freedom House. (2009b). Map of freedom in the world. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2009
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.
Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting values in western Europe. Unity, diversity and change. In Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. Basingstoke, England: MacMillan.
in’t Veld, R. J. (2010a). Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9
in’t Veld, R. J. (2010b). Towards knowledge democracy. In R. J. in´t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media (pp. 1–11). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_1
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe – three scenarios. Research Policy, 30, 953–976.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231–246.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
O’Donnell, G. (2004). Human development, human rights, and democracy. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications (pp. 9–92). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Palmberg, C., & Luukkonen, T. (2006). The different dynamics of the biotechnology and ICT sectors in Finland. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters (pp. 158–182). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Plasser, F., & Plasser, G. (2002). Global political campaigning. A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Saint-Paul, G., & Verdier, T. (1993). Education, democracy and growth. Journal of Development Economies, 42, 399–407.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1976/first published in 1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Tassey, G. (2001). R&D policy models and data needs. In M. P. Feldman & A. N. Link (Eds.), Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy (pp. 37–71). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Voting and registration in the election of November 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/Table%2005-1.xls
Umpleby, S. A. (2005). What I learned from Heinz von Foerster about the construction of science. Kybernetes, 34(1-2), 278–294.
UNDP. (2007). Human development report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008
UNDP. (2009). Human development report 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2019). Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3: Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix. In: Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01517-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01517-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01516-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01517-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)