foundationswas, thus, carried out in the context of application. it was heterogeneous, as it originated
from negotiating the various knowledge positions of the participants (policemen, users,
architects, etc.). it was transient, as the solutions it proposed were adopted for specific
places at specific times. The people who co- operated on the project dispersed after it
was concluded. The knowledge which was developed step- by- step, had to be socially
accountable. each step in the process needed economic sources from various sponsors;
therefore each was appropriately argued for. From the very beginning the project was
truly (d) team- work, needing effective coordination. each step was (e) time- limited
and (f ) quality control was inherent in the context and use- dependency of the project.
each successive step depended on whether the previous one was successful. The (g)
networks of various groups of participants operated both through face- to- face contact
and through information and communication technology in heterarchical relationships. The
(h) social distribution of the new knowledge happened through the diffusion of knowledge
production and different contexts of application or use over a wide range of potential sites.
new guidelines for safer housing were distributed through user organizations, police
circulars and via various channels of information and communication technology.
These two cases, examined through the author’s ‘matrix of comparison between
mode 1 and mode 2’, elucidate the different character of various research aspects
within the framework of each of these two modes. The key differences relate to various
practice contexts in which they have been carried out. The examination of the two
cases attempts to clarify the differences between the premises and the consequences
of operating within each of the two frameworks. it also highlights the potential for a
dialogue between what may initially seem as irreconcilable positions.
mode 1-related academic systems do not tend to view mode 2 as a serious knowledge
producer, while the discipline- bound knowledge of mode 1 is perceived by the
protagonists of mode 2 as legitimate, but as having a restricted sphere of applicability
(nicolescu 2002: 44). it can be argued that there is not only a potential for bringing
these two modes together, but that this might be beneficial for both perspectives.
mode 2 offers a broad, inclusive framework for field- specific research in the design
fields. it welcomes the traditional disciplinary design research, but it also opens for
explorative initiatives where professionals can contribute in innovative ways, both as
practitioners and scholars in their fields. The awareness of these opportunities should
be built into research education for prospective design researchers, as well as among
mature practice- based researchers who have produced mode 2-related, transdisciplinary
research, without being cognizant of the fact. Both research educational strategies
could strengthen the intellectual identity of both junior and senior design researchers
and make them more successful while competing for research funds with knowledge
producers from other, academically more established fields.
Notes1 ‘de ulike fagene legger seg så å si ved siden av hverandre og bidrar med hva de kan til det temaet
som drøftes. Flerfaglig samarbeid krever ingen faglig integrasjon, men ulike faglige bidrag kan
inspirere og utvikle de enkelte faglige bidragene’ (nyseth 2007: 22).
2 The first part of the diagram is based on the author’s experience as an academic evaluator. over
the past 15 years she has often served as a member of scandinavian evaluation committees for