IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i5p645-655..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Zapp
  • Justin J. W. Powell

Abstract

The ‘Mode 2’ approach is among the most widely used to analyze changes in contemporary science and innovation systems. This approach suggests that application-driven, transdisciplinary, reflexive, and contextualized scientific knowledge will be produced by an increasingly heterogeneous set of organizations, with universities no longer as dominant. Analyzing the case of educational research (ER) in Germany, which has undergone profound institutional and paradigmatic change since 2000, allows us to ask whether the Mode 2 thesis holds. Considerable investments in ‘empirical’ research and the top-down setting of the research agenda have, we argue, fundamentally altered the research infrastructure of this increasingly diverse multidisciplinary field, challenging the traditional humanities-based Pädagogik. Especially based on waves of large-scale assessments of school performance, the rapidly-growing ‘empirical’ ER field is characterized by quantitative and policy-relevant (applied) knowledge claims. Finally, we identify risks associated with rapid and policy-induced shifts in ER from Mode 1 to Mode 2.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Zapp & Justin J. W. Powell, 2017. "Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 645-655.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:645-655.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw091
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen F. Ladd & Edward B. Fiske, 2008. "Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 3(1), pages 149-150, January.
    2. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    3. Kristoffer Kropp & Anders Blok, 2011. "Mode-2 social science knowledge production? The case of Danish sociology between institutional crisis and new welfare stabilizations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 213-224, April.
    4. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    5. Leydesdorff, Loet & Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1441-1449, December.
    6. Leuze, Kathrin, 2008. "Bildungswege besser verstehen: Das nationale Bildungspanel," WZBrief Bildung 02, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    2. Katherine Leanne Christ & Roger Leonard Burritt, 2019. "Implementation of sustainable development goals: The role for business academics," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 571-593, November.
    3. Enrique Acebo & José-Ángel Miguel-Dávila & Mariano Nieto, 2021. "The Impact of University–Industry Relationships on Firms’ Performance: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 276-293.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivan Cucco, 2014. "Network-based policies and innovation networks in two Italian regions: a comparison through a social selection model," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(114), pages 78-96.
    2. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    3. Thai Thi Minh & Carsten Nico Hjotrsø, 2015. "Relational dynamics in the multi-helices knowledge production system: A new institutionalism perspective," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-08, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    4. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    5. A. E. Rodríguez Salazar & M. A. Domínguez-Crespo & A. M. Torres-Huerta & A. I. Licona-Aguilar & A. Nivón-Pellón & V. N. Orta-Guzmán, 2021. "Analysis of the Dynamical Capabilities into the Public Research Institutes to Their Strategic Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    7. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link & Martijn Hasselt, 2019. "Knowledge begets knowledge: university knowledge spillovers and the output of scientific papers from U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1367-1383, December.
    8. König, Jonas & Suwala, Lech & Delargy, Colin, 2020. "Helix Models of Innovation and Sustainable Development Goals," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 1-15.
    9. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    10. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Stefano Denicolai & Antonella Zucchella & Federico Moretti, 2018. "Not So Similar After All: Exploring The Diversity Of Strategic Orientations For Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(04), pages 1-33, May.
    12. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    13. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & Isabel Fletcher & Catherine Lyall & Christian Pohl, 2022. "Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity [Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 865-877.
    14. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Cristiano Codagnone & Federico Biagi & Fabienne Abadie, 2016. "The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’," JRC Research Reports JRC101279, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Hokey Min & Yohannes Haile, 2021. "Examining the Role of Disruptive Innovation in Renewable Energy Businesses from a Cross National Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    18. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    19. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K. & Vandeberg, Rens L.J., 2008. "A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1255-1266, September.
    20. Dorothea Jansen & Regina Görtz & Richard Heidler, 2010. "Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 219-241, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:645-655.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.