THE NEW PRODUCTION
OF KNOWLEDGE - THE DYNAMICS OF SCIENCE AND RESEARCH IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES,
Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott Simon Schwartzman,
Martin Trow. London, Sage Publications, 1994.
Joseph Agassi, Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, 27, 3, 354-357, Sept. 1997
As this book displays the state of the art in a relatively new academic
discipline, the sociology of science and science policy studies combined,
it deserves study disappointing though it is. Though short, it is no easy
read; it often uses heavy language to say the obvious, yet it is the obvious
that is, unfortunately, often overlooked. The book often presents the obvious
as novel, however. For example,
This description of the changing nature of innovation in the
global economy has important implications for the future shape of knowledge
production. Whereas value used to be added by developing technologies
which would allow for economies of scale, now these economies need to
be augmented or replaced by economies of scope arising from the application
of skill and insight in configuring resources, particularly knowledge
resources, in novel ways, and doing so not just singly, but continuously.
(p. 63)
Here past economic growth is erroneously and unnecessarily explained as
due to economies of scale. This is a variant of Marx's view, which implies
that competition increases the concentration of capital. This sounded reasonable
as long as the steam engine was the only significant source of power, not
in the presence (for more than a century now) of the electric motor. The
variant presented in this book is wild. Since much of it taps economics,
it would have been wise to include an economist on the team of its authors
(see especially p. 63). What the paragraph cited here says and elaborates
on later is true: the economic advantage of industrialized countries over
the rest of the world is in the skills that enable constant technological
growth. My apology for this detailed discussion of one paragraph: the rest
of this review will be less pedantic.
When scientific status is claimed for an idea about science, it clearly
ought to be applicable to itself. This book probes research procedures that
sooner or later get established; it describes unrecognized procedures as
unscientific or not yet scientific (p. 2). It thus reads differently when
considered already or not yet favored by the establishment. When Albert
Einstein said "scientists are opportunists" ("Scientific Autobiography"),
he was ignoring the majority who repose in their niches. He also bypassed
the way opportunists endure. (He himself was tremendously lucky as Max Planck
recognized him at once.) The growth of research to its post-World War II
mammoth dimensions directed sociologists to the normal, timid (industrial)
researchers. Here, ideas of Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn were found useful,
as they justify the timid researcher. (Kuhn justifies also the use of pressure
by academic power brokers to force the rank and file to toe the line and
believe the new paradigm.) The prerequisite here, however, is to boost the
power brokers by identifying them with brilliant researchers and present
established record keepers as wildcat prospectors. This book cheers those
who sooner or later force power brokers to reform research practices, yet
it shares this identification (see p. 106). Whose side is this book on?
It hedges, because of the vague status of the authors and their discipline
as semi-established.
The authors' hearts are in the right place, though. The book is full of
the right cliches: science is dynamic, science does not grow in the vacuum,
contents and organization interact, some scientific technology is scientific
knowledge, and self-criticism is laudable. Is this said in approval or in
protest?
A new term is introduced: Mode 2. Mode 1 is (allegedly) traditional: Newtonian,
learned, disciplined, and above all, sound (p. 169). It will not be outmoded,
however, as 95% of all researchers work in recognized modes (p. 1). Who
count as researchers and how is their mode recognized? Throughout, the book
presents industrial research, normal science Kuhn-style, as Mode 2, yet
it is Mode 1. Much of the praise lavished here on Mode 2 is explained as
the flexibility of markets being higher than that of the academy. This is
not much of a praise. What is needed is a discussion of the demand to increase
workers' ability to participate in the process of innovation, to increase
public control of industry, and to improve standards of safety and obligatory
testing. The authors say their views apply also to the arts, the humanities,
and the social sciences, but they also admit that this is not so (see defensive
p. 96).
What, then, is research Mode 2? It is bold, reflexive (read self-critical;
see, however, p. 110), transdisciplinary, and heterogeneous. After World
War II, research did organize in dramatically new ways, but its novel characteristics
are misdescribed well here: the explanation of the origin of Mode 2 (p.
10) makes no mention of the Manhattan project. Vannevar Bush (1946) and
Alvin Weinberg (1963) are reported (p. 158) to have observed that now full
control of the allocation of vast research moneys is in few hands and that
this is a snag. What is to be done? No answer is given other than a praise
of the market mechanism. No mention is made of the proposal to erect public
bodies for the reassessment of the decisions of committees every now and
then, not even for the discussion of new criteria of allocation of resources
(see timid p. 161ff.). Some current criteria are external (the promotion
of international cooperation is a criterion in Sweden, whose government
has supported this project) and the public should check these, as well as
intellectual loyalty: contra Polanyi and Kuhn, public controls should be
placed against the dispositions of committees to support only established
researchers and established lines of inquiry.
The discussion of quality control is brief (p. 8; see also pp. 31-4, 78-9,100,
and particularly 152, where proposals are made that sound very far-reaching
but are commonplace) and contrasts peer review in Mode 1 with the marketability
in Mode 2. The main factor, the rise of a new and vast science-based industry,
is discussed as novel, though the trend began early in the industrial revolution.
The novel matter here is not any new social accountability (dreamed up on
p. 36), but expansion and its problems, including ecological ones that belong
elsewhere.
Education plays a big role here, of course. The authors discuss the fact
that universities have expanded and that they prepare new technological
cadres. This is only partly true: it would be, had universities open admissions.
Were going to a university merely a matter of the acquisition of skills,
there would be no haggling over grades and engaging lawyers, which is a
practice growing in different continents with alarming speed. The authors
are, as usual, too complacent.
The book includes a few examples. They are all brief and presented as cases
of Mode 2. One example is the hypersonic aircraft (p. 20ff.), a case of
basic research (read theoretical with an eye on the practical). Is all basic
research Mode 2? If not, what is special here? No answer. Another example,
architecture (p. 97ff.), is regrettable, as it confuses the benignly interdisciplinary
with the uselessly eclectic and even with the undisciplined. Example 3 concerns
the Annales (p. 106ff.), the historical journal that presents an academic
school that was entrenched by one person. All of a sudden a power base appears
through the cracks (p. 106), with no analysis except the statement that
the person in question is a good organizer and, more importantly, a good
scholar. As if there are no better scholars in France today whose organizations
are less remarkable. The authors find Mode 2 traits in the tradition of
the Annales, which is facile, seeing that this tradition is old-fashioned
at heart, not to say defunct, as it follows the idea that history has a
grand scheme. Its view of the grand scheme of history may be true, but the
self-critical attitude which the authors so warmly recommend requires some
rational debate on the matter, some response to critics. The authors admit
that the situation is inconclusive, especially regarding Mode 2: everyone
is welcome to it. The case of the failure of the Brazilian authorities to
modernize is another example (p. 134ff.) briefly and most inadequately analyzed.
Finally, some National Science Foundation self-advertisement (p. 142) swallowed
hook, line, and sinker.
No doubt, this book is a failure, and the failure is ours - the whole intellectual
venture that now encompasses vast industries which are penetrating the academy
despite resistance. The resistance is silly, both because it is hopeless
and because the breaking down of the walls of the academy is all to the
good. But the change invites planning and planning requires much more research
than what is going on.
The most amazing aspect of the book's failure is its acceptance of the received
adage that the social sciences cannot compete with the natural sciences
in the significance of their practical contributions. When the survival
of humanity depends on wise policies that have not yet begun to be drafted,
this is strange; for example, there is hardly any topic more transdisciplinary
than drug abuse. Back to the drawing board and with more Mode 2: more daring,
imagination, and opportunism. Let us have more Mode 2 research.
Finally, the index. It is a disgrace.
Joseph Agassi Tel-Aviv University and York University, Toronto
<