Mode 2 can be explained by the way research funds are distributed among scientists and how scientists focus on obtaining these funds in terms of five basic features: knowledge produced in the context of application; transdisciplinarity; heterogeneity and organizational diversity; social accountability and reflexivity; and quality control.
[4] Gibbons and colleagues argued that a new form of knowledge production began emerging in the mid-20th century that was context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary.
It involved multidisciplinary teams that worked together for short periods of time on specific problems in the real world.
[1][5] In support, Limoges wrote, "We now speak of 'context-driven' research, meaning 'research carried out in a context of application, arising from the very work of problem solving and not governed by the paradigms of traditional disciplines of knowledge.
Scholars in science policy studies have pointed to three types of problems with the concept of Mode 2: its empirical validity, its conceptual strength, and its political value.
Mode 1 is a construct, built upon that base in order to justify autonomy for science, especially in an earlier era when it was still a fragile institution and needed all the help it could get (references omitted).Thus, Mode 1 is essentially a theoretical construct, not a description of actual scientific research, as the boundaries between different disciplines and "basic" and "applied research" have always been blurred.
[14] In the same article, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff[15] use the notion of the triple helix of the nation state (government), academia (university) and industry to explain innovation, the development of new technology and knowledge transfer.
[17] Regarding the conceptual strength of Mode 2, it has been argued that the coherence of its five features is questionable, as there might be a lot of multi-disciplinary, application oriented research that does not show organizational diversity or novel types of quality control.
Mode 1 is founded on a conceptualization of science as separated into discrete disciplines, where researchers operate within the confines of their specialized fields [1].
Described by scholars like Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, and others, Mode 2 is characterized by a more context-driven, problem-focused, and interdisciplinary approach [1,2].
In this model, multidisciplinary teams are brought together for short periods to work on specific real-world problems, with a greater emphasis on the applicability and societal relevance of the research.
This framework acknowledges the need for mutual interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge creation, fostering synergies between various actors and institutional structures.
Mode 3, though more inclusive, was still constrained by the limited number of stakeholders and perspectives engaged in the knowledge co-creation process.
At the heart of Mode 4 is Moleka's groundbreaking "decuple helix" framework, which expands the scope of stakeholder engagement and knowledge co-creation to incorporate a comprehensive range of actors, from academia and industry to marginalized communities, the natural environment, and international organizations.
This inclusive, holistic approach is essential for unlocking the transformative potential of collaborative research and innovation to tackle complex, interconnected societal challenges.
This paradigm shift represents a radical departure from traditional models, offering a new vision for the role of science and scholarship in building a more sustainable and equitable future.