Abstract
In this chapter the history of the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium is used for a critical analysis of terms such as “fundamental”, “applied”, “Mode-1” and “Mode-2”. In the first place, it is made clear that such terms often had a rhetorical value rather than one that aims at explaining different research contents. In the second place it is shown that the normal use of those terms contains a confusion of dichotomies that needs to be disentangled in order to reach a more proper way of distinguishing between different types of research.
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.
This story was told to the author by two people who were involved in the discussion, namely Dr. E.F. de Haan (interview on September 9, 1997), former director of the Nat.Lab., and Mr. B. Kaper (interview on March 3, 1998), former director of the Product Division Radio, Gramophone and Television (RGT).
- 2.
For exact references, see de Vries (2005), 137.
- 3.
de Vries (2005) describes this history. This contribution to the “Science in the context of application” project is largely based in this book. I will not mention further detailed references to the book, as all examples can easily be found through the book’s Table of Content.
- 4.
Edgerton (2005).
- 5.
- 6.
Gibbons et al. (1994).
- 7.
The quote is from a letter written by Holst to A.D. Fokker dated November 30, 1913. The English translation is from Heerding (1988, 314).
- 8.
Wilholt (2006) describes another example: the Giant Magneto Resistance (GMR) effect.
- 9.
See Reich (1985).
- 10.
Edgerton in my view too easily discards the existence of the linear model by claiming that linearity is not explicitly found in the policy documents of both industrial and public research. It cannot be denied that the very notion of “fundamental” or “basic” suggests that something can only be built once a foundation has been laid. This does suggest linearity, and therefore the frequent use of the terms “fundamental” and “basic” does entail a certain popularity of the linear model.
- 11.
Kroes (1995).
- 12.
Casimir (1983).
- 13.
So I concur with Edgerton’s doubts about the reality of the linear model, not because it did not exist in theory, but because it was never really put into practice (at least, not in the Philips company).
- 14.
de Vries (2005), Part III.
- 15.
Böhme et al. (1983).
- 16.
The term “postparadigmatic” as such was not used, of course.
- 17.
The term “frozen” was used by Dr. K Bulthuis, former director of the Nat.Lab., in an interview with the author of this chapter on November 18, 1997.
- 18.
Böhme et al. also insisted that finalisation was science-driven, not society-driven, as Forman (2007) showed. In the case of the Nat.Lab. the Transfer Projects were seen by the PDs as Nat.Lab.-driven and not PD-driven, and for that reason faced problems of transfer similar to those in the 1950s and 1960s.
- 19.
Gibbons.
- 20.
The term Mode-2 was not used, of course, as it did not yet exist.
- 21.
Gibbons et al. (1994).
- 22.
In fact Gibbons gives a more complicated description with four distinct characteristics, but it boils down to this.
- 23.
Lang (1996).
- 24.
In Stokes’ Pasteur’s quadrant one cell remained empty (the one for research not aimed at new knowledge, neither done in the context of a concrete application). In the quadrant to replace Mode-1 versus Mode-2 all cells can be filled. My critique on the oversimplification of the Mode-1 versus Mode-2 dichotomy is not unique. Hessels and Van Lente (2008) also show that this dichotomy does not do justice to the rich variation in R&D.
References
Böhme, G., W. van den Daele, and W. Krohn. 1983. Finalization in Science. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Bush, V. 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Casimir, H.B.G. 1983. Haphazard Reality. Half a Century of Physics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Edgerton, D. 2005. “The linear model” did not exist: reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century. In The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications, eds. K. Grandin, and N. Wormbs, 31–57. New York, NY: Watson.
Forman, P.. 2007. The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology 23:1–152.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwarzmann, and M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.
Heerding, A. 1988. The History of N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hessels, L.K., and H. van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37:740–760.
Kroes, P.A. 1995. Technology an science-based heuristics. In New Directions in the Philosophy of Technology, ed. J.C. Pitt, 17–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lang, J.K. 1996. Das Compact Disc Digital Audio System. Ein Beispiel für die Entwicklunbg hochtechnologischer Konsumelektronik. Aachen: Technische Hochschule (Diss.).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1963. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1970. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1976. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1981. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1994. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development. Paris: OECD.
Reich, L.S. 1985. The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes, D.E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
de Vries, M.J., with contributions by F.K. Boersma. 2005. 80 Years of Research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium, 1914–1994. The Role of the Nat.Lab. at Philips. Amsterdam: Pallas Imprints (Amsterdam University Press).
Wilholt, T. 2006. Design rule: Industrial research and epistemic merit. Philosophy of Science 73:66–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Vries, M.J. (2011). Science in the Context of Industrial Application: The Case of the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium. In: Carrier, M., Nordmann, A. (eds) Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 274. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9051-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9051-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9050-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9051-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)