IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i4p251-260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ‘discipline’ of post-academic science: reconstructing the paradigmatic foundations of a virtual research institute

Author

Listed:
  • Tomas Hellström
  • Merle Jacob
  • Søren Barlebo Wenneberg

Abstract

This paper asks whether post-academic science, alternatively referred to as Mode 2 or Triple Helix, can be given disciplinary foundations in spite of its often-displayed organisational diversity, relevance orientation and transdisciplinarity. It answers the question in the affirmative, after having first reviewed and criticised a number of traditional concepts of disciplinarity and disciplinary emergence, established a new basis for conducting a paradigm analysis of fragmented, soft and user oriented fields of inquiry, and finally reviewed a case institute where this type of research has been sustained for over 10 years in a virtual setting (geographically distributed without a ‘home base’). The argument of the paper is that the concept of post-academic disciplinarity may be reconstructed as the guiding principles of hybrid research collective's historical and institutional context, where a ‘hard core’ of reflexive communicative inclusiveness pertains vis-à-vis certain issues, instrumentalities and practitioner constellations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob & Søren Barlebo Wenneberg, 2003. "The ‘discipline’ of post-academic science: reconstructing the paradigmatic foundations of a virtual research institute," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 251-260, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:4:p:251-260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780407
    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.

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:4:p:251-260. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.