foundationsmode 2 has appealed to the design scholars as a new ‘in practice model’ (lawson
2002: 114). This mode opens various ways in which the design professions could
contribute to knowledge production. The question was even posed whether designers
were not ‘...just ahead of the game rather than behind it after all’ (lawson 2002:
114). some examples of transdisciplinary research by architects and designers have
been discussed in the milieu of several scandinavian schools of architecture (dunin-
Woyseth and nielsen 2004).
The protagonists of transdisciplinary research maintain that, in spite of its growing
importance and extent, it does not replace the traditional forms of research, such as
disciplinary research. even if competing, it is still an additional form of research that
involves partners from outside academia (häberli et al. 2001: 8). The founders of the
mode 1/mode 2 movement maintain that in order to master the tasks of mode 2, one
has to get through an apprenticeship in mode 1. one first has to develop a kind of
intellectual identity of mode 1 in order to be able to acquire multiple cognitive and
social identities for practising research in mode 2 (gibbons et al. 1994: 149).
Mode 1 and Mode 2 ‘diagrammed’Figure 4.4 has served as the backbone for the introductory lectures on mode 1 and
mode 2. it seems to have had the two features of a generic diagram, as formulated by
stjernfelt: (i) being an icon, the diagram is characterized by its similarity to its object,
but it represents this similarity through a skeleton- like sketch of relations, and, (ii) the
diagram is the only sign by the contemplation of which more can be learnt than lies in
the directions for its construction.
in order to introduce the first period of doctoral scholarship in architecture in
scandinavia, one of the well- known systems of knowledge classification was presented
(Kaiser 2000). The basic norms of the scientific ethos, the so- called Cudos, as
formulated by Robert merton, were then briefly elaborated on for scientific knowledge
purposes (ziman 2000: 28–55). While covering the second period, the role of the world
outside academia, in this case in the form of certain university laws, was discussed
and its direct impact on doctoral scholarship in architecture and design was pointed
out. elucidating the third period in the diagram, the three aims for organized doctoral
education, as applied in the uK and norway, were presented. These were: (i) to
introduce the phd students to the ‘landscapes of knowledge’ in order to position their
own field; (ii) to strengthen the phd students’ intellectual identity with regard to this
knowledge; and (iii) to prepare the phd students to cooperate in research with other
knowledge fields. subsequently, it was mentioned how the nordic network for research
education has developed ideas about the ‘making disciplines’ as a possible response
to the ‘second’ aim of the research education (dunin- Woyseth and michl 2001).
The diagram’s first three figures created a skeleton- like sketch for a discussion on
disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. This discussion was essential
as an introduction to new modes of knowledge production, where transdisciplinarity
constitutes the cornerstone. The diagram thus facilitates the consideration of design
research as monodisciplinary, multi- and interdisciplinary (i.e. mode 1-based), as well
as transdisciplinary (i.e. mode 2- based).