The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts

some notes on mode 1 and mode 2

process and examined it with regard to establishing whether it met the criteria of
transdisciplinarity. even though many research projects over the years have been in
their essence transdisciplinary, there has not been a great collective awareness around
them. By strengthening such awareness, practice- based research could get stronger
legitimacy and economic support while competing for research funds within the
milieux of academic disciplines. The architect- researcher in the project has given a
good picture of how he operated between the two modes of knowledge production.
While in action, using his professional expertise, and as a coach/mentor for the project
as a whole, he was clearly a mode 2 researcher. When reporting to the research
community, he followed the usual mode 1 criteria of scholarship. This transdisciplinary
project illustrates a situation when both modes of knowledge production have been in
a synergetic dialogue.
The ‘fairy- tale case’ is based on many activities which happened in the context of
mode 2 knowledge production, even if this context was not, at the time, recognized as
such. Recognized – a posteriori – as a transdisciplinary research project, the (a) objective
of this project, i.e. housing safety, was political. The numerous participants of the
project showed (b) an interest in different methods in order to develop complex processes and
developed new, appropriate methods to first of all diagnose the problems more clearly
and, later on, to propose adequate measures to solve them. The (c) knowledge production

Mode 1 Mode 2

(a) Free search for knowledge (a) politically defined research objectives,

ecological considerations, holistic approach,

economy, etc.

(b) search for basic causal relationships (b) interest in methods in order to develop

complex systems or processes

(c) ideas, methods, values and norms (c) Knowledge production carried out in

the context of application and decided

upon by academic community marked by

its heterogeneity and transience. social

accountability regarding what is considered

sound research practice

(d) emphasis on individual creativity (d) emphasis on team-work, co-ordination

(e) Continuous process (e) Time-limited projects

(f) Quality control through internal criteria (f) Quality control with emphasis on context

and user-dependence of academic community

(‘peer-review’)

(g) hierarchical organisation forms and

decision-making systems directed top-down

(g) networks operating through information

and communication technology in

heterarchical relationships

(h) distribution of knowledge through the

media: books, academic papers, journals,

conferences etc.

(h) social distribution of knowledge: the

diffusion of knowledge production and different

contexts of application or use over a wide range

of potential sites

Figure 4.5 ‘matrix of comparison between mode 1 and mode 2’ (dunin- Woyseth 2001: 93, based
on gibbons et al. 1994)