IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i9p1602-1615.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and 'Mode 2' knowledge production

Author

Listed:
  • Heimeriks, Gaston
  • van den Besselaar, Peter
  • Frenken, Koen

Abstract

The use of computer-mediated communications in research is one of the major shifts in processes of scientific knowledge production. We ask the question whether there are distinct disciplinary online communication patterns. In particular, we hypothesize that Mode 2 sciences have a higher use of Internet applications and address a greater variety of audiences with a greater variety of research outputs than Mode 1 sciences. Mode 2 was introduced as a descriptive and diagnostic characterization of transitions in knowledge production that are characterized by a range of features such as interdisciplinarity, reflexivity, focus on the context of application, heterogeneous actors, and a wide variety of types of output. This new mode of knowledge production has supposedly evolved out of the disciplinary and academic context of traditional ways in which knowledge was produced. It involves different mechanisms of generating and of communicating knowledge, more actors who come from different disciplines, and different sites in which knowledge is being produced. We analyze online communication patterns in eight scientific disciplines including four Mode 1 sciences (High Energy Physics, Astrophysics, Literature Studies, and Psychology) and four Mode 2 sciences (Genetics, Biotechnology, Computer Science, and Information Science). We collected data on several dimensions of online communications, which included the shared set of outlinks of the departments and the characteristics of the websites in terms of size and types of files. The results suggest that web-based communications play a role in obtaining informational and financial resources, the use and exchange of digital data, the dissemination of results to academic audiences, and the dissemination of (non-traditional) output. The Internet maintains the three Mode 2 aspects of knowledge production: the interaction with non-academic partners, the dissemination of non-traditional output (software tools, databases, etc.), and the use of digital data. However, these characteristics of Mode 2 can be traced in different web attributes in each field. There is no systematic relationship between the three Mode 2 elements and the web characteristics under study here across all fields. This questions the usefulness of the Mode 2 label and underlines the specificity of scientific disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Heimeriks, Gaston & van den Besselaar, Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2008. "Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and 'Mode 2' knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1602-1615, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1602-1615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00139-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Peter van den Besselaar & Gaston Heimeriks, 2006. "Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 377-393, September.
    2. Eileen G. Abels & Peter Liebscher & Daniel W. Denman, 1996. "Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Part I. Queries," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(2), pages 146-158, February.
    3. Michael Buckland, 1999. "The landscape of information science: The American Society for Information Science at 62," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(11), pages 970-974.
    4. Rob Kling & Geoffrey McKim, 2000. "Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(14), pages 1306-1320.
    5. Arie Rip & Barend J R van der Meulen, 1996. "The post-modern research system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(6), pages 343-352, December.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labini, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," LEM Papers Series 2005/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Gaston Heimeriks & Marianne Hörlesberger & Peter Van Den Besselaar, 2003. "Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 391-413, October.
    8. Barjak, Franz, 2004. "On the integration of the Internet into informal science communication," MPRA Paper 2268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Borah, Dhruba & Malik, Khaleel & Massini, Silvia, 2021. "Teaching-focused university–industry collaborations: Determinants and impact on graduates’ employability competencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    2. 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.
    3. Vasileiadou, Eleftheria, 2009. "Stabilisation operationalised: Using time series analysis to understand the dynamics of research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 36-48.
    4. Kunhao Yang & Mengyuan Fu, 2024. "Polarized collaboration benefits knowledge production: empirical analyses of the mediating effect of co-production pattern in Wikipedia articles on climate change," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2677-2699, December.

    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. Mike Thelwall & Franz Barjak & Hildrun Kretschmer, 2006. "Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 373-383, June.
    2. Hildrun Kretschmer & Ute Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2007. "Reflection of co-authorship networks in the Web: Web hyperlinks versus Web visibility rates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 519-540, February.
    3. Pontus Braunerhjelm, 2007. "Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(9), pages 619-631, November.
    4. Yi-Ming Wei & Jin-Wei Wang & Tianqi Chen & Bi-Ying Yu & Hua Liao, 2018. "Frontiers of Low-Carbon Technologies: Results from Bibliographic Coupling with Sliding Window," CEEP-BIT Working Papers 116, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology.
    5. Nicolas Carayol & Pascale Roux, 2006. "A strategic model of complex networks formation," Working Papers of BETA 2006-02, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Simplice Asongu & Jacinta C. Nwachukwu, 2016. "PhD by Publication as an Argument for Innovation and Technology Transfer: with Emphasis on Africa," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 16/030, African Governance and Development Institute..
    7. Marcia J. Bates, 2021. "Search foundations: Toward a science of technology‐mediated experience. Sachi Arafat and Elham Ashoori. Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2019. 448, pp. $65.00 (hardback). (ISBN 9780262038591)," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(3), pages 377-383, March.
    8. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2009. "How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-001-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    10. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    11. Chung-Souk Han, 2011. "On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 845-865, December.
    12. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    13. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    14. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    15. Rainer Kattel & Annalisa Primi, 2010. "The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe Compared," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 29, TUT Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    17. Conti, Annamaria & Gaule, Patrick, 2011. "Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 123-135, February.
    18. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    19. Andjelković, Miroslav & Tadić, Bosiljka & Maletić, Slobodan & Rajković, Milan, 2015. "Hierarchical sequencing of online social graphs," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 582-595.
    20. Pamela Lang & Fábio C. Gouveia & Jacqueline Leta, 2010. "Site co-link analysis applied to small networks: a new methodological approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 157-166, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1602-1615. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.